I thought that the conquests made by Cortez and Pizarro were great achievements, not something wrong.
25 comments
This is about the past, so my crystal ball isn't appropriate. Let me read the bones. (My, that's a lot of bones...)ever wrong?
Hmm... Well, there's enslavement, mass slaughter, rape, pillage, looting, forcing your religion down people's throats at swordpoint... Nah, can't think of anything evil there.
Besides the fact that it was an attempt at genocide over a piece of fairly useless real estate?still going on today?
Besides the fact that it's essential motivation was greed and misdirection?
I would go on, but why bother.
Yeah, they were all great except for the unnecessary slaughter, destruction of cultures and rampent looting.do get a little exercised over the damnation of the crusades by Muslims while the ignore the fact that Islam spread largely through conquest, but that doesn't mean either one was right.
Granted, the explorations of the Americas were great accomplishments in the logistical sense; socially, however, not so much.
That they killed people and imposed their faith for their convenience when Jesus told two of his disciples who proposed to kill everybody in a village, because they didn't want to receive Jesus, not to?, and what did he say to Peter, about the one who lives by the sword?
Hi!
@Cristian: Let's see, on average, indigenous tribes are considered to be second-class citizens in their own countries, have poorer housing and income, and are minorities in their own lands. How exactly did Cortez and Pizarro help them escape "the stone age" that they were in? Does having fewer immunities to diseases and less developed weapons justify being taken advantage of, slaughtered, raped, enslaved, and dehumanized? If something like that happened to your ancestors, would you consider it to be justified as long as the conquerors "civilized" them? Maybe it's just me, but I consider the status of being civilized to have far more to do with compassion, respect, courtesy, and understanding than with fancy clothes and shiny weapons.
The civilizations that existed in the Americas were much more sophisticated than european historians say.
The followers of God the Criminal Idiot were content to engulf and devour, as any more mature or diplomatic alternative to meeting new people was unknown to them.
The first Crusade was about as legit as any invasion could be....
I thought that the conquests made by Cortez and Pizarro were great achievements, not something wrong.
And what's so evil about the First Crusade?
So, conquering vast stretches of land by killing, mistreating, and oppressing the natives is acceptable if it leads to a better economic status a century or three later? Well, ya learn something new everyday...
Cortez was a fucking sociopath who wanted only gold and murdered anyone in his path.
The first Crusade indiscriminately massacred muslims, jews, and christians in conquered cities.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
