How did Christians conquer the world? [Archive]

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 16:27

Ethnic nationalism, fuck yeah!
:rolleyes:

I wasn't being entirely serious. Besides, it's not really "ethnic nationalism" as such when the spread of Christianity historically had been associated with the spread of Western imperialism.

So in this sense "Chinese nationalism" is no worse than "Black nationalism" or "Indian nationalism".

The ethnic nationalism of a relatively oppressed nation is still a lot better than religious fundamentalism or right-wing religious institutions associated with political imperialism. I'd rather have than "Chinese nationalism" than "Christian nationalism" or Christian theocracy.

So what, you think it is a good thing if Christianity "conquers" China? :rolleyes:

There is a fundamental difference between "defensive nationalism" and "offensive nationalism". If I said "The Chinese Dragon will conquer all of the world" that would indeed be reactionary, but that's not what I said at all.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 16:28

To think that Christians have already "conquered" the world is quite fucking Eurocentric in itself. What is this "world"? It doesn't seem to include China or India, or much of the Middle East.

Franz Fanonipants

13th June 2011, 16:29

I wasn't being entirely serious. Besides, it's not really "ethnic nationalism" as such when the spread of Christianity historically had been associated with the spread of Western imperialism.

So in this sense "Chinese nationalism" is no worse than "Black nationalism" or "Indian nationalism".

The ethnic nationalism of a relatively oppressed nation is still a lot better than religious fundamentalism or right-wing religious institutions associated with political imperialism.

unless you are a uigher in which case

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 16:31

unless you are a uigher in which case

Well, Chinese nationalism today obviously has a different character to some extent and is of a mixed character.

But I was talking about historically, back in the 19th century, in the era of the Opium War, when Western imperialism was strongly associated with politically sponsored missionary activity.

But I would argue that Black nationalism today doesn't have the same character as several decades ago either. After all, the current president of the United States is black (or half-black at least), and he is an arch-imperialist.

Besides, why focus on the Uyghurs? They are hardly the most oppressed ethnic minority in China today. Tibetans are actually generally more oppressed than they are.

Fawkes

13th June 2011, 16:36

Ethnic nationalism, fuck yeah!
:rolleyes:

Taking everything way too seriously, woo hoo!

Pretty much what psycho said. Beginning with the Holy Roman Empire, Christianity was the religion adopted by a number of very powerful empires that have exerted enormous influence over the last 2000 years. Empires leave behind residual elements of cultural influence on populations they once ruled over, and religion is one of the most apparent of these. The prevalence of Christianity throughout Central and South America is a similar phenomenon to the area's usage of the Spanish language -- both are lasting impacts of colonialism on an indigenous population that was subjected to brutal subjugation and cultural annihilation. If you look at a world map showing the prevalence of Christianity by region, you'll find a lot of commonalities between those areas that are largely Christian and ones that were/are ruled over by predominately Christian nations.

Robocommie

13th June 2011, 16:43

But I would argue that Black nationalism today doesn't have the same character as several decades ago either. After all, the current president of the United States is black (or half-black at least), and he is an arch-imperialist.

Barack Obama isn't anything NEAR an emblem of black nationalism. He's a figure in the black community, but he's not the American Nelson Mandella or anything.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 16:45

Barack Obama isn't anything NEAR an emblem of black nationalism. He's a figure in the black community, but he's not the American Nelson Mandella or anything.

True, but you might wish to know that with Chinese nationalism too there are reactionary right-wing versions and relatively progressive (though of course still limited) left-wing versions.

China isn't like America. China isn't a first-world nation. It's a very poor country with a GDP per capita 10 times lower than the EU average. It's only beginning to show some expansionist and petit-imperialist tendencies (which left-wing nationalists in China reject). Chinese nationalism shouldn't be completely written-off as reactionary.

Robocommie

13th June 2011, 16:58

True, but you might wish to know that with Chinese nationalism too there are reactionary right-wing versions and relatively progressive (though of course still limited) left-wing versions.

China isn't like America. China isn't a first-world nation. It's a very poor country with a GDP per capita 10 times lower than the EU average. It's only beginning to show some expansionist and petit-imperialist tendencies (which left-wing nationalists in China reject). Chinese nationalism shouldn't be completely written-off as reactionary.

However, China is rapidly becoming a superpower, and Chinese nationalism, I would argue, has always been at least partially about Han supremacy. Increasingly so as Beijing gets stronger, more capitalistic, and therefore, more imperialist.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 17:19

However, China is rapidly becoming a superpower, and Chinese nationalism, I would argue, has always been at least partially about Han supremacy. Increasingly so as Beijing gets stronger, more capitalistic, and therefore, more imperialist.

"Traditional" left-leaning Chinese nationalism is mainly about fighting against Western imperialism (since the Opium War in 1840) and fighting against the Western oppression of China. It's not so different from the Indian nationalism of people like Ghandi in many ways.

Even Han nationalism can be relatively left-wing. You do know that China was under Mongol and Manchu domination for much of the last 1000 years, right? So Han national liberation movements that fought against such feudal imperialism must be relatively progressive, from the White Lotus Sect and Red Turban rebellions against Mongol rule to the bourgeois revolution in 1911 that ended the Manchu feudal dynasty. Lenin even highly praised the Chinese bourgeois revolution of 1911 (the Xinhai Revolution), comparing it to the French Revolution in Europe.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that in Chinese history, the Han had always been the dominant ethnic group. Because that simply isn't true at all.

And frankly, even relatively reactionary forms of Han nationalism, like Confucian-centrism, is still objectively better than the theocracy of Christian-centrism. At least Confucianism is a rational humanist tradition.

PhoenixAsh

13th June 2011, 17:33

Christian missionaries used every available means to create converts. Either by direct force, or creating a system where it was even outlawed to practice other religions, through bribes to tribal leaders, through black mail or by giving conditional aid....even kidnappings have bee used (like with the aboriginals for example) to mass reeducate children in the christian ways.

There really is no set method.

redhotpoker

13th June 2011, 17:52

It was the major religion of the mercantile feudal powers Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands and the modern imperial capitalist powers Great Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, United States, and Italy, with Japan being the exception.

If the Aztecs had become a modern nation state with capitalism people in Mexico, the south west, and South America would most likely follow their religion, though it probably would have become centralized around Quetzalcoatl or some other deity.

Blake's Baby

13th June 2011, 17:54

There are more Moslems in the world than Christians, aren't there?

So, not even the biggest religion in the world, let alone 'conquering' it.

Similar questions would be 'why are most people Indian?' or 'why does nearly everywhere be in Canada?' I feel.

PhoenixAsh

13th June 2011, 18:18

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Christian_world_map.png

PhoenixAsh

13th June 2011, 18:19

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Muslim_world_map.png

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:29

Nice maps. But it's not just "Christianity vs. Islam" or some kind of "clash of civilisations" neo-con non-sense.

What about all those countries that are neither Christian nor Muslim, like China?

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:31

How about this map: (more universal and less Abrahamic-centric)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png/800px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:34

Another one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Religion_distribution.png/800px-Religion_distribution.png

PhoenixAsh

13th June 2011, 18:34

I couldn't find the same kind of map for buddhism as for the other two. Did not intend to make it appear as centricism just as an illustration.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:35

Abrahamic religions (purple) vs. Dharmic-Daoic religions (yellow):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Abraham_Dharma.png

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:36

I couldn't find the same kind of map for buddhism as for the other two. Did not intend to make it appear as centricism just as an illustration.

I know. I wasn't directly accusing you. ;)

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:49

Christianity vs. Islam:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Christ_Islam.png

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 18:54

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

tbasherizer

13th June 2011, 18:58

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 19:12

One Book: Guns, Germs, and Steel. I mean sure, Jared Diamond is a bourgeois-type, but he points out irrefutable facts of anthropology, geography, and biology in his explanation for the prominence of the "Western World".

I've read the book. There is a TV documentary on this on YouTube as well. One can search for it.

I agree with you generally, at least this is a purely materialistic and scientific account, and does not rely on either Nazi-style physical race essentialism (certain races are biologically superior than others) or some kind of ridiculous religious justification (certain races are "more favoured" by God). In fact, the materialistic reason given in this book/TV documentary is not so different from Marxist materialism in the basic sense, namely that how people make a living fundamentally affects what kind of society they will have.

Blake's Baby

13th June 2011, 19:24

Hebrew Hammer

13th June 2011, 19:38

How about this map: (more universal and less Abrahamic-centric)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png/800px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

We got Israel on lock. :lol:

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 19:39

Right, so, maps aside (Christian Canada is bigger than Moslem Indonesia but has a smaller population, thereby making maps meaningless for determining number of adherents) it seems Islam does not have more adherents than Christianity.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

I sit corrected. Carry on.

However, Muslims are generally more religious than Christians:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG/800px-Religion_in_the_world.PNG

Percentage of people who are non-religious/atheist:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Irreligion_map.png/800px-Irreligion_map.png

ComradeMan

13th June 2011, 21:35

However, Muslims are generally more religious than Christians:

Where do you get that from?

Come to Italy and try things out....

PS. My muslim friends say one thing they like about Italy is that they can have a beer without getting their balls broken...

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 21:43

Where do you get that from?

Come to Italy and try things out....

PS. My muslim friends say one thing they like about Italy is that they can have a beer without getting their balls broken...

Um. Your data is merely personal and anecdotal. I mean one of my best friends is actually Italian (he is from Sicily), and he is from a Catholic background. However, he isn't really religious at all.

I'm looking at the overall statistical data on the maps I posted. It shows that on the whole Muslim countries are more religious (and less secular) than Christian ones. From a Marxist perspective this is significantly due to the level of economic development, rather than anything intrinsic in Christianity or Islam. Of course there are many local variations like you say, (and on the map I provided it shows Italy as a relatively religious country and more so than some Muslim countries so it fits in with your data as well) but I'm only looking at the large picture on the global scale.

Zealot

13th June 2011, 22:09

They haven't conquered the world at all and as some have pointed out, most christians only consider themselves with that title as a matter of culture rather than being actively religious. The major break that Christianity got was that the Roman emperor converted to Christianity and the rest of the empire quickly followed his example, more likely they may have felt compelled due to his brutal policies. If this had not have happened I haven't a doubt it would be no more than a small lesson in today's history classes. It spread through peaceful means at times (trade, bribery etc) but also through outright violence and conquest.

ComradeMan

13th June 2011, 22:38

Um. Your data is merely personal and anecdotal.

As opposed to your well-sourced and scientifically based, complete biased generalisation...

:lol:
Mamma mia! Ma sai dove vivo?

Here's another anecdote, in certain Middle Eastern countries you can drive out to the desert and find tonnes of abandonded empty beer cans and whisky bottles where people used to go and have illicit parties....

Out of curiosity... Have you ever lived/worked in an Islamic nation?

Hebrew Hammer

13th June 2011, 23:04

Here's another anecdote, in certain Middle Eastern countries you can drive out to the desert and find tonnes of abandonded empty beer cans and whisky bottles where people used to go and have illicit parties....

Out of curiosity... Have you ever lived/worked in an Islamic nation?

Fuck that, that's why it's better to party in Tel Aviv.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 23:05

As opposed to your well-sourced and scientifically based, complete biased generalisation...

I got my sources from wikipedia. (Look at the maps) If the maps are biased, then it would imply that wikipedia is not a reliable source. In any case I would generally trust wikipedia (even though it's far from perfect by all means) more than any kind of personal experience, whether my own or those belonging to someone else.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 23:09

Out of curiosity... Have you ever lived/worked in an Islamic nation?

Think about it:

What would happen if I explicitly come out as transgendered in Saudi Arabia, or explicitly come out as gay/lesbian/bisexual in Iran?

As opposed to say somewhere like Tel Aviv, London or Beijing?

If you were gay for instance, would you really feel safe in a theocratic country like Saudi Arabia? It's pretty much common sense. Self-preservation.

Of course many "Muslim" countries are not like that. For instance, Morocco actually used to have a pretty good gay scene a few decades ago, I've heard. So like I said before the enemy of LGBT people is theocracy and fundamentalism, not Islam or any particular religion intrinsically.

Blake's Baby

13th June 2011, 23:13

But what do the maps mean? How do they relate to the question (which in itself ambiguous)?

Is Canada - massive landmass, coloured for 'Christian', has a very small dispersed population, maybe has a lot of 'mehh, yeah, Christian, whatever, eh?' people in it - more or less 'conquered' than say Yemen, which is a much smaller country with I don't know how big a population, who may all be really really devout?

If it's just about landmass: then the obvious answer is more of the landmass is nominally 'Christian' because Christians go where it's cold and no-one lives; whereas other religions tend to hide nearer the equator where it's warmer and everyone lives closer together. Except Brazil, which is also massive and Christian, but has great empty bits. Either way, lots of Christian countries are pretty empty.

If it's about population, then, something totally different is going on.

Queercommie Girl

13th June 2011, 23:25

But what do the maps mean? How do they relate to the question (which in itself ambiguous)?

What question are you talking about?

I don't think we are referring to the same thing. My point is simply that statistically speaking Christians tend to be more secular than Muslims. I didn't even mention whether there are more Christians or Muslims in the world.

Is Canada - massive landmass, coloured for 'Christian', has a very small dispersed population, maybe has a lot of 'mehh, yeah, Christian, whatever, eh?' people in it - more or less 'conquered' than say Yemen, which is a much smaller country with I don't know how big a population, who may all be really really devout?

Which is irrelevant to my point anyway.

If it's about population, then, something totally different is going on.

Objectively there are more Christians than Muslims in the world, but Muslims tend to be (statistically) more intensely religious.

Blake's Baby

14th June 2011, 00:17

Um. Your data is merely personal and anecdotal. I mean one of my best friends is actually Italian (he is from Sicily), and he is from a Catholic background. However, he isn't really religious at all.

I'm looking at the overall statistical data on the maps I posted...

And how does that data relate to the question being asked, is what I'm asking you, and what do you think the question 'how did christians conquer the world' actually means?

Is 'conquering the world' about area conquered? Population conquered? Depth of ideological identification? These are all different ways of interpreting the question. How do you see your maps ansering these questions, and which need answering anyway?

ComradeMan

14th June 2011, 09:51

But what do the maps mean? How do they relate to the question (which in itself ambiguous)?....

That's a good point-- I read that the estimates of Christians in China run between 40-100 miliion, even at 40 million that's bigger than the population of many countries in the "Christian" area!

hatzel

14th June 2011, 12:56

How do you see your maps ansering these questions, and which need answering anyway?

I think the issue is that the question is ambiguous. I mean, the thread title asks how Christians conquered the world. That could be talking about how Europeans (who just so happened to be Christian) conquered the world (or, quite a lot of it). However, the question in the thread itself suggests that we're talking about the spread of the religion itself. The maps show that such an assertion is shameless hyperbole. However, one could, having established that, concentrate on explaining how Christians / Christianity 'conquered' those parts of the world that it did. Hmm.

ComradeMan

14th June 2011, 13:13

I got my sources from wikipedia. (Look at the maps) If the maps are biased, then it would imply that wikipedia is not a reliable source. In any case I would generally trust wikipedia (even though it's far from perfect by all means) more than any kind of personal experience, whether my own or those belonging to someone else.

But the maps don't tell you "how" religious people are do they? If that can even be quantified. There are so many variables in religious affiliation- I suppose you could put it on a scale of 0-atheist 1- culturally xyz religion but nothing more, right up to 10 in the sense of fully "orthodox" and practising- and even then it's problematic.

You would rather trust wikipedia than your own personal experience? :confused: :lol:
You said Muslims are generally more religious than non-Muslims. Can "religiousness" be quantified? Hmmm and secondly drawing on my experience of living and working with Muslims most of my life, and in Islamic countries etc... I don't see how you can make such an assertion to be honest.

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 15:18

I suppose you could put it on a scale of 0-atheist 1- culturally xyz religion but nothing more, right up to 10 in the sense of fully "orthodox" and practising- and even then it's problematic.

That's how they do it in empirical social science, asking people to complete questionnaires.

It's not 100% objective of course, but it does give people an idea of what religious people think about their own beliefs.

You would rather trust wikipedia than your own personal experience? :confused: :lol:
It depends on what one is talking about. This isn't a personal issue, but an objective scientific analysis. So obviously on this issue I would trust general statistical sources more than any kind of "personal experience".

This is just scientific common sense. I'm surprised you don't know about it.

You said Muslims are generally more religious than non-Muslims. Can "religiousness" be quantified?
See above.

Hmmm and secondly drawing on my experience of living and working with Muslims most of my life, and in Islamic countries etc... I don't see how you can make such an assertion to be honest.
I don't know which "Islamic countries" you are talking about to be frank, but I think any sane person would agree that a country like Saudi Arabia, where gay people might get executed because homosexuality is supposedly against the teachings of the Quran, is much more religious than a country like Britain.

On the other hand, a secularised "Muslim" country like Turkey is a very different matter.

Queercommie Girl

14th June 2011, 15:21

And how does that data relate to the question being asked, is what I'm asking you, and what do you think the question 'how did christians conquer the world' actually means?

Is 'conquering the world' about area conquered? Population conquered? Depth of ideological identification? These are all different ways of interpreting the question. How do you see your maps ansering these questions, and which need answering anyway?

I wasn't actually addressing that question directly...

I think the original question is largely meaningless. In fact, I think only right-wing cultural imperialists would even talk about the spread of Christianity as some kind of "conquest". It's a very reactionary use of words. Relatively progressive Christians wouldn't even see things in such a way.

Rafiq

14th June 2011, 15:47

Developed nations tend to be less religious than third world nations because they usually have more educated people, hence, they are developed.

And the reason Christianity spread is largely because of it's influence on the 'Holy Roman Empire' which was extremely influential in the world. One could argue the Roman Empire is what brought Europe to where it is.

And Islam spread in almost the same way Christianity did. Through Slavery, Conquest and Bribery. Also, the Ottoman Empire.

Enough of this Idealist hogwash.