/lit/ - Literature

You don't study it in a non biased way. You study it with the maximum possible awareness of biases.

History is mostly made up and reading modern interpretations of it is sort of like trying to work out who ate your burrito by listening to your housemates argue about who pulled at the party last week.

>>5431455
I agree with this.

>>5431461
This.

Procopius believed magic and shit was real.

>>5431451
You discovered revisionism. Now wait for someone else to contradict what you've read and send you into an existential crisis.

By the way here are relevant articles if anyone cares:
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03481.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0055.html

They're mostly based around breaking the myths but I've also been reading Madden's Concise history of the Crusades

Is he someone I can trust? If there's any professional historian here I'd like an opinion

>>5431470
pls no I'm just waiting for that to happen
This is why I didn't go for history in college, it just makes me doubt everything instead of being enthusiastic
How do I know every college in the country isn't filled with false narratives
Is this the descent to /pol/?

>>5431478
Nah, knowing this is basically basic history. If you try and read any of the scholars on the subject you'll learn the same thing as OP (assuming you aren't him).
Heck you can even read this on Wikipedia.

>>5431478
>Is this the descent to /pol/?
/pol/ has accepted their own false narratives.

>>5431520
Isn't /pol/ just satiric shitposting?
That's what I do when I go there.

"believing history is believing criminals" -simone weil

basically, this, history is always biased because it's written by the winners and because we try to make people that are from our nation and people that believed in the same values as our current society look like heroes, for example, someone from france will consider napoleon 1st as a great figure even though he did some horrible things (spain's occupation, invading half of europe, britain's blocus) while someone from britain will despise napoleon 1st a better example would be how people see brutus and caesar, caesar is seen as a great figure and brutus as an assassin that killed his adoptive father, but actually, brutus believed in democracy so much that the possibility of caesar becoming monarch made him do that assassination, but since the roman empire (wich is the foundation of our actual civilization) was founded by octave, we see caesar as a great figure (he actually was a great figure so it's not really a problem, same could be said for napoleon) and brutus as an assassin.
basically to have a non biased of history you must also buy history books from foreign countries wich have different values and culture, and then try to mix those two views on historical events to get what would be the closest to a non biased view
you can also find good non biased authors but i don't know any, or you could also try being objective and aware of what's biased and what's not

>>5431473
catholic websites are hardly unbiased sources

as for trusting: don't fully trust any historians, always check the primary sauces if you can but keep a look out for bias in primary sources(for example remember that Tacitus might of been exaggerating and embellishing Agricola's exploits because Agricola was his father-in-law )

>>5431451
>the crusades were more than justified in combating the wide islamic thread that threatened europe

Thank goodness they saved Europe from equality under the law, scientific enlightenment, and good food.

>>5431754
>scientific enlightenment

>implying

>>5431754
Go fuck a goat Mohammed. Muslims are an irrational joke.

>>5431451
>he could also be pro-west biased
good

History major here.

There is no proper 'historical method.' The closest thing there is to a scientific way of doing history is Marxism, and no Marxist historical study has ever been perfectly accurate.

A historian has to consider the veracity of the sources, but also has to be conscious that no source is unbiased. You assemble a picture of the most relevant available facts, which you work out by researching them, and then adjust your picture of reality when you acquire new facts.

Never presume your own correctness in any matter.

>>5431534
/pol/ is right about the Anglo-American-Jewish banking conspiracy, but not much else.

>>5431741
He's a respected historian. I knew somebody would comment on the site names but you can read these on other sites if you look for it.

>>5431754
> muslims
> equality under the law
Moron, do you even know _anything_ about Islam at all??

>>5431451
>>the crusades were more than justified in combating the wide islamic thread that threatened europe
The islamic nations were messing among them, if anything they debilitated the military power to defend europe of real invasions.

But "the church is bad" is such a basic idea that it might as well be taken as false, no one is an asshole just because.

>>5431795
Islam pre-3rd millennia =! islam today

>>5431943
Sharia is a constant and defining feature of Islam since forever, you fucking moron.

The cornerstone of Sharia law is the denial of the idea of 'equality under the law'.

>>5431754


>>>>>>/b/
Trollin over there, kid

Everyone is biased, all of the time. Read as many varying viewpoints as you can on a given event and decide for yourself.

>>5432035
Alright then, I guess I'll try reading Runciman after Madden to see his view, from what I hear he influenced how people viewed the Crusades for decades

>>5431455
I took a course on historiography and it really helped me with this. To save you a couple hundred bucks and an entire semester, here's the long and short of it. In history, you need to be aware of the writer, the school the come from and what their motivations might be in writing their account. Often times they have an axe to grind and by looking for it it's incredibly easy to figure out what they're trying to shill you.

>>5431470
all history is revisionism

>>5431478
all narratives are categorically false, or at least only partially true

sorry op but like someone else said here there is no such thing as 'unbiased' history. even the primary sources are biased, since primary sources come from people who could at least write, and if not were in some kind of position of power--usually administrative.

to be fair, there is some history that is more of a gross distortion than others, and others who straight up lie. if you read stuff from academic publishers-- ie [x] university press--its generally reliable, peer reviewed, etc

>>5432050
Runciman is foundational, most Crusades historians start with him and work out from that. For a person on the opposite side of the spectrum as Madden I'd suggest Asbridge, as distasteful as reading him was. (Connecting the Crusades to 9/11...)

>>5432067
But that would seem like history isn't even worth getting into if you don't really seriously study it. You might as well keep to the common narratives.

>>5432073
That's like saying skiing isn't a worthy hobby to get into if you don't devote yourself to competing in the olympics. It's a hobby that you pursue at your own pace and just generally enjoy. No need to be a perfectionist about it though.

>>5432073
thats true of any other academic discipline. your layman's grasp of other kinds of knowledge are inadequate as well.

i think what's worth understanding about history is how our interpretations fit with or against present day ideology

>>5432073
>isnt even worth getting into if you don't really seriously study it.
Would you take the time to remind this to every post about anything?

>>5431451
>pro-west biased
>bad
Kek.

>>5432272

sometimes you just wanna know what happened not hear why white people are so great for what may or may not have happened

>>5432305
That's nice. Enjoy your computer, 4chan, the printing press and modern society, you brainwashed, self-hating idiot.

>>5432272
>pro europe
>pro west
>europe caring about other continents
>europe caring about anything but germany, france and great britain.
>germany, france and great britain not actively trying to fuck everyone but themselves

>>5432337
>Germany, France and Great Britain not actively trying to fuck each other over for all of European history following the fall of Rome
But yeah all white people represent a monolithic society working in tandem to fuck over everyone else and support each other.

>>5432073
One can study one specific area without massive time investment. Like how some older men seem to know everything about WW2 history or something.

>>5432272
> Medieval Church
> Not pretty much against the ideas of modern Western Civilization

>the inquisition didn't really happen guys
>that's why it's documented by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith
>muh whataboutisms
>Catholic shills trying this hard to whitewash the era in which they were in control which, even if we accept that everything was completely exaggerated and fabricated, was still a totalitarian hellhole compared to the rights we have today

Go back to /pol/

>>5432389
>The ideas of modern Western Civilization
>Not toxic to the makeup of Europe

>>5431451
>islamic thread
If you're gonna listen to retards like that, you might as well believe the actual justifications for the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition:

God told them to do it.

>>5432401
>the inquisition didn't really happen
When did OP claim this?

>muh whataboutisms
You mean how the Crusades were a direct response to muslim aggression or how the Church Inquisition (not the Spanish which was under the purvey of the Spanish Monarchs) was an attempt to be merciful?

>Catholic shills trying this hard to whitewash the era in which they were in control which, even if we accept that everything was completely exaggerated and fabricated, was still a totalitarian hellhole compared to the rights we have today
>implying Protestant and Enlightenment shills didn't try their hardest to shill against the Church
>implying you haven't bought their bait hook line and sinker
Nothin personal, kid

>>5432337
>germany, france and great britain not actively trying to fuck everyone but themselves
>implying those three have done *anything* in the last 1500 years BUT fucking each other

>>5432452

Bitch please. All of the atrocities have been well documented, even by the Catholic Church itself. Just accept that your Church is simply one organization among many, that your beliefs are one among many and that the days of priests calling the shots in society are never going to return.

Or don't and wow me with another one of your brilliant retorts how everyone who disagrees with you is fat and wears a funny hat

>>5432475
*tips fedora*

>>5432475
>Being an enlightenment shill

Speaking of Thomas Madden, his wikipedia page got a nice selection of articles and lectures.

>>5432486
>>5432490

>>5432475

>>5432475

>>5431451
>inquisition was merciful
>crusades were justified
>anti church narratives came from protestants


what are you reading?

Why Christianity is the best 101? Written by John White Johnson?

>>5432508
I haven't read up on the Inquisition, but
>Crusades
>Not justified

>Protestants
>Not the biggest anti-Catholic shills ever

>>5432518
there were many crusades. Most were not justified

>>5432522
>most crusades
>not justified
gotcha there!

>>5432518
>Crusades
>"peasants who we keep broken and poor because God says so (plz dont revolt) there are people who are different who are smart, intelligent, lead incredible mathematical advances, know science, and are not kept ignorant like you. They are the metaphorical serpent in the garden AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS THAT OF THE DEVIL!!!
Go kill them, or else...you'll...go to hell?"

>>5432522
I'd say the Crusades in the Holy Land (setting aside the fuck up that was the Fourth Crusade) were justified.

>>5432534
>the majority of Crusaders
>peasants
How would a peasant afford the inordinate cost of armed pilgrimage to the holy land along with paying for his weapons and armor? How would he afford the countless meals he'd have to eat, the equipment to sleep when he's on the road, the price for an inn or hostel when he passes by one? Do you even think before you post? Most Crusaders are known to have been noble lords spending extreme amounts of money to fund their efforts in the Crusades. Yes the Peasants Crusade happened, but they never even saw the Holy Land. Any event where the peasants tried to march on Crusade ended in spectacular failure (as in they never even saw a desert)

>>5432337

This is a discussion about history on a shitty imageboard, so I hope you understand how badly it reflects on you that you are still not qualified to participate in it.

>>5432550
All the crusades were failures
The Church was a failure
everything
absolutely everything in the Middle Ages was a failure until people stopped listening to the Church and did it their own way.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Empire was busy advancing civilization and preserving all the art of the cultures before them.

>realize how barbaric and violent the crusades were
>also realize that as someone descended from christian lebanese, I probably wouldn't exist or would be a muslim had the crusades never happened

I'll call it a net positive

>>5431998
>tfw no qte3.14 sufism as the major islamic sect

>>5432372
I wish this was true.

>>5432559
>All the Crusades were failures
You what now

>>5432577
>>5432577
Islam won.

>>5432585
Not the First Crusade :^)

>>5432593
Oh, you mean, until they just gave it back?

>>5432593
whoops wrong picture (´･ω･`)

>>5432585
>all crusades were for the Holy Land
Do you see any pagan Balts walking around? How's that Ummayad Hispania?

>>5432597
>Muslims slaughtered in the streets
>lol they gave it back

orrr

>Latins fight so hard against Saladin that he eventually negotiates to let them all go for a fee, not wanting to lose anymore men
>He was just being merciful

>>5431451
sauce for these 3 claims.

>>5431534
>That's what I do when I go there.
Fucking cancer. /pol/ is half trolls and half edgy teens being nazi or whatever. Nothing but a wasted opportunity because people like you play along.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

>>5432617
>he thinks there are people on /pol/ who are genuine

>>5432631
Yes, any problem with that ? You can't fathom people being dumbfucks or what ?

If people like you wouldn't shitpost there it might get to be sth. By now all posts are like "women are evil" "SJW everywhere!" "such a shoahahah" "the jews are really behind everything" and so on.
Now I wrote some program that searches through 4chan boards and hope to return there by using it to detect sincere posts.

>>5432665
>I wrote some program that searches through 4chan boards and hope to return there by using it to detect sincere posts

>>5432617
Source is "The Truth about the Spanish Inquisition" and "The real history of the crusades" articles by Thomas Madden, as well as his book Concise History of the Crusades

>>5432682
>le autism meme if somebody does something I can't hurrr
Back to /pol/ with you. You don't even read do you ?

>>5432721
I've been faking the ability to read fojadhn'ljhio n;h.

>>5431754
>equality under the law
Is this a joke?
>scientific enlightenment
Yeah, scientific enlightenment never happened in Europe.
>good food
ultima ratio cinaedorum

>>5432795
>ultima ratio cinaedorum
not him but could you explain this?

So where did this idea that Islamic civilization was superior came from?
Does it have any validity?

>>5432816
Not the guy you're asking, but "Ultima Ratio Regnum" is what Louis XIII. wrote on his cannons, translated as "the last argument of kings", i.e. his cannons = violence is what he results to when diplomacy fails.
Now, Cinaedus means faggot in Latin, so he's implying that arguing the Arabic cuisine is better than the European is the last argument of some faggot who can't argue for the superiority of Medieval Islam except by talking about their food.

>>5432842
Neat, thanks. Always wanted to learn latin but I missed my opportunity in high school. It seems like such a complex language I can't help but feel trying to auto didact it will turn into a colossal fuck up.

>>5432839
Golden Age of Islam and some greek texts being preserved by the Islamic scholars. There is some debate as to how much scientific progress they actually made.

>>5432816
"ultima ratio regum" means "the last argument of kings" and refers to war. It was traditionally engraved on cannons in particular, since their manufacture required a massive capital investment that only a king could afford. This is a common phrase and you are a better person for knowing this.

"ultima ratio cinaedorum" means "the last argument of faggots" because just about every single "list of ways that the white people suck" seems to include "X people's food is better" even in contexts in which it doesn't make any sense (the Crusades led to systematic legal oppression, hundreds of years of backwardness and...blood pudding?). You will also be very hard pressed to find a defense of open borders that doesn't mention how good "ethnic food" is. I won't say any more since I don't want to turn this into a derail.

>>5431478

/pol/ is a fine board.

ONE OF US ONE OF US

>>5432859
No problem.
And I don't know about teaching Latin yourself but it is, compared to English at least, a rather complex language, yeah.
Maybe some university/college courses to learn the gist of it, at least? If you are really interested, I mean.

>>5432839
Following the fall of the Roman empire there was a brief moment when the islamic caliphate was superior to the european civilizations of the time.

When liberal european historians looked back upon that period they noticed that the middle east was more civilized than europe, hence the term "islamic golden age"

In reality, China and India were both much more civilized than the islamic caliphate. Heck, most islamic advances of the time are just translations of chinese and indian works.

Is Thomas Asbridge's Crusades really biased against the crusaders? There are a lot of different histories of the Crusades and I'm not sure which to start with.

>>5432882
I'll have to look into my community college. My uni doesn't offer any language courses

>>5432559

Oh wow so much subjectivity prattled around as if it were true in one post do you happen to be a pretend nihilist?

>>5432888
As a start I'd recommend Runciman. Then Asbridge and Madden.

>>5432906
>>5432888
Also Oxford Illustrated is pretty good as well. That should give you a wide amount of knowledge to form an opinion

>>5432868
I hate saying the word "texts".

>>5432917
scrolls?

>>5432058
But to be aware of the author you would have to read books on his movement and school, and then you would have also to be aware of the biass of those books authors and so on. There are no firm ground at all.

>>5432906
Gah, it seems Runciman's are out of print save for an abridged version. Thanks for the recs.

>>5432937
You might try checking a library.

>>5432937
Start with Madden since he will break the ingraved myths, and then you can read the other shit that is less pro-catholic

>>5432948
Yeah, I stopped thinking.

>the inquisition killed less people in 600 years than Jacobin terror in 6 months
>still the inquisition and catholicism are forever associated with repression, while jacobinism and republicanism are associated with freedom and liberty

>>5432937
I've got pdfs of Runciman if you can handle digital

>>5432965
It's because followers of a certain religion got emancipated thanks to jacobinism.

>>5432965
Aristocrats Guillotined (quick/merciful) vs jews muslims and athiests tortured to death

>>5432965
The thing is that historians have only recently started to thoroughly go through the records left by the Inquisition, which were extensive.
The results of this have not reached the common public at all.

It's always amazing to discover everything you thought you knew is wrong.

>>5432965
The inquisition was only one of the ways Catholics oppressed anyone and everyone who disagreed with them and such oppression lasted for centuries. The Terror the French Revolution brought is a passing fad compared to that.

>>5433027
Dude, those who rejected papal authority were no better at all. Often they were worse. The Church put SOME priority on saving lives, the kings didn't give a fuck.

>>5431469
It does, m8. >>>/x/

>>5433015
Actually, the common public was always fed with the idea that 6.000.000 gorillions of innocent secular atheist humanists were killed by the Inquisition, and only recently we are learning that it wasn't so.

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

>>5433027
When people talk about the inquisition a lot of the times they're talking about the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects) but most people fail to realize that the Spanish Inquisition wasn't headed by the Church, instead it was headed by the overly zealous Spanish monarchs. The same Spanish monarchs that would force Alexander VI to convert the Jews in Rome in return for aid against the French.

>>5432967
That'd be great, thanks!

>>5433055
Yes, and if we want to break the old idea, we need to constantly show it to the public. And I haven't seen this done at all, recent documentaries still follow the usual narrative.
Historians are pretty bad at communicating with the public, this is not a big surprise.

>>5433055
Being that most of the public was Protestant and atheism did not lose its stigma until somewhat recently, I would imagine most hated the Inquisition/Church because of what they did to Protestants.

>>5433085
>Historians are pretty bad at communicating with the public
More like revisionist history being bad for the current desired message.

>>5433114
And today we can see the great fruit of protestantism. It's no wonder people are more sympathetic of the Church.

>>5433119
>It's no wonder people are more sympathetic of the Church.

Who? Other than reactionaries I can't think of anybody who desires more Catholicism.

>mfw Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were actually competent emperors
>mfw it was just the senatorial class slandering them because they were heavily taxed by those respective emperors

https://www.youtube.com/user/RealCrusadeHistory
A YT channel that is trying to be serious and objective about the crusades, may be interesting for history plebs (was to me at least)

>>5433126
*Other than Catholics

>>5433128
And that's why you don't learn history from tv.

>>5433126
Everyone who isn't religious and doesn't want people to go to church XY where they will learn only BS and where creationism is a thig?

>>5433070
Second volume gave me a bit of trouble if it doesn't work I can upload to mediafire
https://mega.co.nz/#!G4MWjTJZ!bwUXCAoOqvTONzvIhjCSiDxEWNspGpmKV-5OPYekvPo
https://mega.co.nz/#!b0t12RDL!LPQ51ev8YU3qGzmA8RVtxyH-FlRpVcOVGhCQNTIYL7g
https://mega.co.nz/#!2h9wkb6Y!IcaiJ4ChMT3cgFigoc7NEzXLfhRs1VrwmNimzHAHjZc

>>5433151
Why would that make one have sympathy for the Church? Not all protestants believe in creationism.

>tfw reading medieval history
>tfw the layers of complexity compound on themselves
>tfw you think of "capitalism" and twenty authors and their ideas instantly appear in your mind and organically coalesce into a framework with differing potentials and variables
>tfw reading a new author sends shockwaves through the framework and allows new permutations
>tfw learning about a new region's economic development in depth and being able to click it into what you know of neighbouring regions' commerce and society and contrast them
>tfw seeing shifting gradations and continuities over an entire continent
>tfw watching the introduction of a new technology or idea as it filters into neighbouring regions and cultures and has different effects based on existing conditions
>tfw reading about radically different outlooks and states of mind transitioning into one another, so that a generation of men were saccharinely over-emotional homeric crybabies who believed every breeze was a saint farting and muslims were literally uruk-hai, and their grandsons were sceptics who tried to recreate ancient greek symposia
>tfw watching the birth of rational politics and states from an infinite variety of different proto-state forms
>tfw badass motherfuckers who kill shit with swords
>tfw norse kings who had casually been vikings and served in the varangian guard in their youth
>tfw medieval history is the perfect blend of individual and systemic forces
>tfw doing coke and reading le goff

>>5433200
Would you say that history is the best narration?

>>5433152
Thanks a lot anon, I got em all.

>>5433200
What are the best works of Jacques Le Goff? Would you happen to have a pdf of any of them?

>>5433200
You, good sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

>>5433200
>tfw doing coke and reading le goff
As someone who's never done coke, what are the benefits of reading and doing coke?
I thought it was an amphetamine for partying and such?

>>5432401

JIDF please

>>5431451
>indoctrinated with a narrative
>re-indoctrination with a counter-narrative

Don't get suckered in, OP.

>>5431451
There is zero moral or historical relevance to the crusades as it relates to our times EXCEPT that which we have decided to invent from. Rightists want to reclaim the crusades as just wars so they can justify the sale of fascist-capitalism by making middle-easterners the original source of all socio-political problems and Leftists want to reclaim the crusades as unjust wars that serve as the material origin for Europe's colonialism, islamophobia, and orientalism.

tl;dr all modern infatuation with the crusades is moralistic slight-of-hand.

>>5433501
As long as you read enough counter narratives and narratives that deal with the epistemological problems that come with history you should be fine.

>>5432559
>absolutely everything in the Middle Ages was a failure until people stopped listening to the Church and did it their own way.

except for great advancments in architecture, medicine, banking and metalurgy to name just a few fields. It's a modern myth that middle ages were a period of stagnation in europe. In truth advancements were many and great.

And guess what! Middle ages didn't end when people stoped following church's will. Church's influence was great even later in Renaissance.

Seriously,get out of that shell of yours you ignorant mongrel.

>>5433622
>The Greeks, the Romans, and even the Chinese more experience more tech/other types of stagnation than the middle ages
>only the middle ages gets shit for it

>>5433066
And it was more about filling the king's coffers with the possessions of the jews it condemned rather than about any form of religious zeal.

Or so I heard

>>5432874
plus it's wrong, everyone know italian food is superior.

>>5432874
>You will also be very hard pressed to find a defense of open borders that doesn't mention how good "ethnic food" is.
And yet I've never once heard anyone make such a statement, ever. The only persons that I've ever heard obsessing about 'foreign' food arguments are xenophobe Europeans that want to push Muslims and Jews out via the claim that halal and kosher food is barbaric.

>>5433722
You must not read a lot. I've even read an entire article that was nothing more than defending the ethnic food argument, link included.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/edible-food-a-triumph-if-immigration-and-globalisation/

>>5433693
All Italian food you know to day is the product of trade from the age of discovery.

>>5432559

>>5432868
>the Islamic scholars

You mean christian scholars in the pay of islamic caliphs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Yahya_Ibn_al-Batriq

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

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

>>5433872
>Islamic golden age
>illiterate pedophile killing people by the thousands

>Christian dark ages
>boss ass niggas like Anselm and Aquinas

>>5433816
>You must not read a lot [of trash opinion-tainment magazine articles.]
Can't say that I do, anon, you got me.

Anyway, just skimming your article but it seems to be in response to a claim that "Indian restaurants are the only good thing to have come from immigration," which isn't quite in line with your claim about people constantly raving that open borders are good because of foreign food.

>>5433872
that Cathedral was not built in the dark ages, and the dark ages only really existed in Northern Europe (northern Italy prospered for example)

>>5432559
When will anticlerical myths go away? The idea that during the Middle Ages people "listened to the Church" as if the Church was the ultimate authority is a ridiculous myth. The Church, during most of the Middle Ages, was extremely weak and had to enter in conflict with temporal powers to have any authority.

If you actually look into the history of the Church during the Middle Ages, you will see that there is a strong correlation between the times when it was weaker and the times of stagnation and "failure".

What we call the "Dark Ages", for example, from the 5th to the 8th centuries, was the time when the Bishop of Rome was a vassal of the Byzantine Empire, not even worthy of being appointed by the Emperor (the Exarch of Ravenna appointed him instead). That and a hostage to Lombard warlords.

It was only during their alliance with the Carolingian kings of Francia that the Church regained authority. This is what we call Carolingian Renaissance.

When the Carolingians fell, the Church fell together into a "saeculum obscurum", an age where the Bishop of Rome was a hereditary position in a family of brigands and prostitutes. Like the realm of the Fisher King, Europe declined also as it was invaded and rape by saracens, vikings, magyars and whomever also wanted.

It was only centuries later, with the Investiture Controversy, that the power of the Church reached the heights that we associated it during the Middle Ages, but that wasn't the Dark ages anymore, but the so-called Renaissance of the 12th century, a time of rediscovery and advancement.

Then came the Western Schism, and along with it the Crisis of the 14th Century. The Church fell, Europe fell, only for them to rise again during the Renaissance.

So really, your version of history is shit.

>>5431451
>the inquisition was basically an attempt by the church to stop the widespread executions by secular courts and was merciful in comparison

what
they just didn't execute themselves, all execution were carried by secular authorities
secular courts usually didn't persecute heretics and witches also people there could have a defender etc

>>5433946
For anticlericals, everything between the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance were "dark ages".

Also

>the dark ages only really existed in Northern Europe

Not even that is completely true. Ireland, for example, experienced something of a Golden Age during this period, which is impressive for a land that a few centuries earlier was completely barbarian and unexposed to Greco-Roman culture.

Too much for the Catholic Church ruining civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Latin

>>5433905
What about al-Kindi?

>>5433952

That's what we are taught in school. Only recently did I discover that the Church actually did some cool things to promote art.

The problem is that 99% of History teachers in high school are left-wing extremists who are shitting on their own professions by teaching a skewed History.

>>5432868
>Golden Age of Islam and some greek texts being preserved by the Islamic scholars
>being preserved

It involved quite a bit more than preservation.

>>5433905
>You mean christian scholars in the pay of islamic caliphs.

Scholars of a variety of faiths made contributions to what were essentially Islamic civilizations. But the overwhelming majority of them were, naturally, Muslims of one kind or another.

These Catholic-Atheist-Islamic-whatever pissing contests are dumb as fuck. If people here didn't argue so passionately about shit that they aren't familiar with, we wouldn't have stupid threads like this.

>>5433952
>>5433988
>anticlericals

It's not all a conspiracy against your church, m8.

>>5434011
>The problem is that 99% of History teachers in high school are left-wing extremists

>>5434017
Very naive of you not to take into account the very real vein of anti-Catholicism that continues to exist today from the reformation.

>>5433994
What about ibn Qurra? There were arabic translators, everyone knows about them, but the Christians are ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

PS: The reason why so many Christians could translate Greek works is because there works were preserved for centuries by them.

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

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

But some people believe that the Arabs got all these Greek texts that the Christians supposedly destroyed out of their camel asses.

>>5431451
You are reading shit sources. That is all.

>>5434017
Sorry, but the ecumenical shitting at the Middle Ages is motivated by anti-clericalism.

Basically, liberals and socialists of the XIXth century wanted to take power away from the aristocracy and the clergy. To that, they developed a teleological view of history where the Church was always on the side of repression and darkness, that way they could frame their own power-grabbing as progress.

Classical, textbook example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_School_War

We see something similar in the current Culture Wars of the Western-world, where everyone opposed to socialism is on the "wrong side of history".

>>5433905
This. The "Islamic Golden Age" was the period immediately after the Muslim conquests. The populations had yet to be converted, the Arabs, wise enough to recognize they knew next to nothing about running an empire kept most of the Byzantine/Roman administrative systems and even personnel in place, and ruled over what remained for centuries an ethnically and cultural diverse region until rules of conversion, taxation and marriage law eventually shifted demographics to a Muslim majority.

Islam thrived when the middle east was pluralistic and merely politically dominated by Islam. The second Muslims became the majority everything fell apart because all they knew how to do was pray and fast while other people ran the day to day society for them.

You'll notice this is exactly the state of affairs today in places like the UAE--majority populations of foreign workers and the added benefit of oil.

this is why we don't have a /his/

too many anons who do not know how to historical method. it would be an embarrassment.

OP, intent and effect of historical actions are almost never aligned with each other. keep reading more sources on your subject and come to a finer conclusion. the one you state is easily dismantled with other proofs. you are almost there anon! keep reading and analyzing!

>>5434013
>Scholars of a variety of faiths made contributions to what were essentially Islamic civilizations.

Most of the inhabitants of the Caliphate were still non-Muslims during this period. To say that it was a "Islamic civilization" because the Muslim caliphs hold political power is to say that the Yuan dynasty was a "Mongol civilization" or the Qing dynasty a "Manchu civilization".

Or saying that Latin America is western because the elite self-identifies itself this way.

>>5434032
Very naive of you claim that the anti-Catholicism from the reformation exists today and that anyone today that says anything negative about the middle ages gives one fuck about Luther or Calvin.

You're the anon that claimed in an earlier thread that racism didn't exist in Europe because there are some non-European saints, aren't you? Is this a Catholic Internet Defense Force or something?

>>5434069
Historical method is communist propaganda to keep lying in the name of socialism, see E.H. Carr or the Annales School.

>>5434057
Maybe, in reality, you're on the wrong side of history

>>5434081
No, the Anti-clericalism of the modern age is not the one from the Reformation, but the one from the XIXth century.

And my point in that other thread was not even about racism per se, but the claim that Europeans didn't consider non-Europeans as human beings, which is bullshit, as the existence of non-European saints show.

>>5431640

And yet we all know about Napoleon, know of his conquests, know of what he did.

The OP can now know some more about the inquisition and the holy wars, it's up to his critical thinking on how to interpret them.

For my own opinion, the inquisition was a terrible act of inhumanity, the church trying to exert power into Europe, and just so happens to have been the lesser of two evils in the process. The crusades were mostly terrible, but were at least partially justified as, hey, Islam was just as fucked up as the Christians and were trying to conquer them as well.

It's often said that the victor writes the history. But often times, the loser isn't gone, and can do a fair bit of writing as well. There are many examples of conflicting opinions and interpretations on history.

But no matter what, you know about Napoleon. And that's awesome.

>>5434011
Pretty sure Michaelangelo would still be based if he hadn't had Church sponsorship.

>>5434088
That's what Simone de Beauvoir said to anti-communists after the Czechoslovak coup of 1948. Look where the communist regime of Czechoslovakia is now.

Clericalism, too, after won the culture wars of the XIXth century. Pic related. The post-war consensus was based on corporatism, catholic social teaching, class collaboration and other of their flags, instead of the anticlerical, secular liberalism of the radicals or marxist socialism.

>>5434081
It is the same train of thought, not a new narrative. People are just disinterested in religion now, and take arguments and framings that were once explicitly religiopolitical for granted as simple mainstream historical interpretation.

The idea that the last 400 years has been progressove process of scientific liberation away from religious ignorance is propaganda that has become normative "fact"

>>5434067
>all of this hindsight revisionism
>seriously honestly claiming Islamic states haven't had any organizational power even though there hasn't not been at least one powerful and organized Islamic state with Muslim majorities since Muhammad was alive up to WW2's conclusion

>>5434080
The Yuan and the Manchu largely ruled by Chinese customs, where as Caliphs ruled under personalized codifications of fiqh.

>>5434116
I didn't say Islamic states could not be organized, or politically and militarily competent. They certainly got better at the administrative side of things. I said the golden age of science, reason, and intellectualism ended with Muslim majorities. The demographics of late first millennium middle east are what they are.

>>5434116
All history is hindsight

>>5434110
>any day now my antiquated sociological outlook will catch on with the kids, just you watch history validate me

>>5434087
>communist propaganda
wut? e.h. carr greatly influenced the historical method that we know today. i don't know what you are talking about.

>>5434147

he might be talking about the whig approach?

>>5434028
They kind of are actually. I live in some of the most pants on head retarded right winged areas of a right winged state, and the history teaches that taught at the schools I attended before I got my degree were pretty much Marxists.

>>5434069
You could make this argument for many image boards though.

Who here on /lit/ actually reads seriously and isn't just shitposting about x, y or z most of the time?

>>5434206
I'd like to see someone attempt to assert that the Whig approach is in fact communism.

>>5434380
i shitpost while i eat breakfast and then leave for university and study the whole day. it's nice getting second-hand embarrassment from pseuds in the morning to give you that incentive to actually apply yourself

>>5434147
AND we was a communist propagandist.

>>5434392
It's really easy, plenty of people make basically that argument.

Mostly crazy people, admittedly, and it's more that both Whigs and Communists are 'progressive' than that Whigs are Communists, but most of your neo-reactionaries and your people who talk about cultural Marxism would implicitly agree with that argument.

>>5434392
Communism is the logical outcome of whiggism. It's undying popularity in liberal democracies is a proof of that.

>>5434130
>They certainly got better at the administrative side of things. I said the golden age of science, reason, and intellectualism ended with Muslim majorities.
Except, of course, for the fact that they didn't.

>>5434080
>Most of the inhabitants of the Caliphate were still non-Muslims during this period.

Which caliphate? What period?

We're talking about high cultures centered on Muslim political and religious elites. If we have to classify them one way or another to satisfy your pissing contest needs, those cultures were overwhelmingly Arabo-Islamic or Perso-Islamic. The contributions of scholars of whatever other religious belief to these civilizations, while noteworthy, do not change the reality of the overarching intellectual context.

>>5434130
>I said the golden age of science, reason, and intellectualism ended with Muslim majorities.

The demographic changes you refer to aren't sufficiently well documented to support such a silly claim. Never mind that you wouldn't be able to prove the sort of causal relationship you're hinting at. Or delimit 'the golden age.'

>>5434147
>i don't know what you are talking about.

Then you've come to the right thread.

>>5433845
and?

Catholic shitposting is the worst shitposting.

>>5434461

>>5434440
>Except, of course, for the fact that they didn't.

brilliant

>the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.

>>5434477
well gosh thanks :^)

>>5434480
>posting the opinions of a non-historian as authoritative

>>5432936
>But to be aware of the author you would have to read books on his movement and school, and then you would have also to be aware of the biass of those books authors and so on.

which is why you start from the beggining.


the greeks

>>5434480
>the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Fitna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khurramites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_at_Samarra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

>mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_invasion_of_Asia_Minor_(782)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_invasion_of_Asia_Minor_(806)

>>5434542
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Amorium

>oy vey, those islamic caliphates were so progressive and tolerant, why can't christians be more like them

>>5434542
How is being forced to pay a jizya not better than being killed or forced to covert just because you were Protestant? I'm not saying that they were glorious super tolerant rulers but that deal was better than the ones Protestants offered Catholics, Catholics offered Protestants, and Catholics/Protestants offered non christian subjects (or those of the wrong sect).

>>5431451
There seems to be a cancerous growth in your right eye, Mr. Frog, better go get that looked at.

>>5434542
>>5434548
So much wikifaggotry in this topic.

>>5434585
>MUSLIMS MADE NON MUSLIMS PAY TAXES! THE HORROR OR IT ALL!

>>5434542

>Nice try, heathen, but observe as I counter your oversimplified positive portrayal of Islamic civilization with my oversimplified NEGATIVE portrayal! Complete with Wiki links! D-deus vult!

>>5434392
Communists tended to adopt a whig history esque view of looking at the world (all states naturally progress towards communism)

>>5434585
homogeneity is better for unity of a state given that all people share a common link and have a greater interest in working together then disparate little pockets of peoples. See: the Jews fucking over Byzantine Levant and making it ripe for Islamic conquest

>>5431451
>>tfw i've been reading WW2 history and came to realize that the invasion of Poland was basically an attempt by Germany to stop the widespread executions of German citizens in Poland and was merciful in comparison

>>5434926
But unlike the OP that's actually true

>>5434616
>>MUSLIMS MADE NON MUSLIMS PAY TAXES! THE HORROR OR IT ALL!

It's enforced by the threat of death/imprisonment. It isn't just a nice suggestion.

Look at how ISIS is doing it. They force christians to pay a tax or basically get crucified. the christians that do pay the tax have to "give up their wives" to Islamists in many cases.

Taxes based on religion/race tend to breed a strange animosity towards the "other"

>>5434934
Shush you'll ruin his conception of Islam as a peaceful, progressive religion that will allow two lesbian women to marry.

>>5434905
i recall a joke about karl marx's theory of history:
archaeologists found a paleolithic cave with a slogan 'viva, slave society, the bright future of humanity!'

All this talk of Crusades got me thinking, will the Pope call another crusade to combat ISIS?

>>5431473
>citing Catholics

Agaha, fucking anon

>>5434934
>It's enforced by the threat of death/imprisonment

What's objectionable about imprisoning people who don't pay taxes?

Considered abstractly, a poll tax in return for communal autonomy isn't a bad arrangement at all. In actual practice, the experience of being a minority in an Islamic society has varied widely across time and place. This kind of thing doesn't jibe very well with modern liberal values, but it has been used successfully to administer Islamic societies with large minorities.

>Look at how ISIS is doing it. They force christians to pay a tax or basically get crucified. the christians that do pay the tax have to "give up their wives" to Islamists in many cases.

>le ISIS horror stories

The people whose corpses they crucify are generally Syrian soldiers or members of rival opposition groups. Most Christians wisely decide to vacate the premises before ISIS moves into an area.

ISIS's reactionary ideology is thoroughly modern, and as much as they'd like you to believe otherwise, they aren't very representative of how Islamic governance has tended to work.

>>5434934
>taxes are "suggestions" in non-islamic states
>ISIS has any kind of semblance to any historical caliphate
>samefagging something about lesbianism... because...
>just before all this your standard "hitler did nothing wrong uguu~" shit

Are there any adults in /pol/, or is this really your best?

>>5434940
>Shush you'll ruin his conception of Islam as a peaceful, progressive religion that will allow two lesbian women to marry.

Because it must be either this or a satanic freedom-hating death cult that wants to steal precious Christian bodily fluids.

>>5435064
I will not have my shitpost be used against another anon. He was not me.

>>5434950
Polish communist joke: Socialism is a synthesis of the highest achievements in human history, from prehistoric times it took primitivism, from the Bronze Age slavery, from the Middle Ages domination, from capitalism exploitation, and from socialism it took the name.

>>5435056
>What's objectionable about imprisoning people who don't pay taxes?

Taxes have some sort of economic justification. What is the economic justification for taxing someone for having a different religion/race/creed/etc ?

>>5435116
Typical Poles, can't even do humor right.

>>5435064
>"hitler did nothing wrong uguu~"

Everyone makes mistakes. Hitler for example never expected the whole world to attack him simply for defending German nationals being persecuted in Poland.

>>5435132
Fascism would be the new Marxism if only Hitler had died around 34 and Goering was given control. Hitler was a radical that only knew how to destroy. Goering would have made Nazism an institution larger than Communism ever could be. Its basically the perfect mass movement, effective on nearly everyone feeling some collective inclinations.

>>5435132
he underestimated the power of elders of zion

>>5435146
fascism is inherently racist while communism is international

>>5431451

Who cares if the inquisition was merciful?

Muslims were tyrants and the Jews were slavers. Good riddance.

>>5435162
Yes, that's why its more effective. The international aspect of communism makes it seem less radical and "unique". The academics might like it but mass movements are lead, built, and ended by fanatics and common believers, both of whom hear the words "international" and feel concrete in their boots.

Meanwhile Nazism can radicalize nearly anyone because it can constantly find a new enemy that must be moved against in some unique way.

>>5435127
>Taxes have some sort of economic justification. What is the economic justification for taxing someone for having a different religion/race/creed/etc ?
The tax enables the affairs of the state and represents the person's cooperation with the state. In Islamic states, the tax on non-Muslims permitted them to practice their religion and organize their communities because they were aiding the state. They were also allowed to exempt themselves from military service.
What all the reactionaries don't realize is that the jizya was just the tax on the non-Muslims. Muslims also paid taxes and were socially (not usually legally) required to pay the zakat, and all Muslim males were required to serve in the military if called upon.

>>5435177
Whereas communism had to be sabotaged and smashed by the capitalist powers over decades, and yet still exists as an ever more increasingly relevant political force, Nazism didn't last a decade. Fascism managed to survive as a symptom of capitalism, however.

>>5435187
There were however strict rules on how they could practice their religion.

>>5435132
> Hitler for example never expected the whole world to attack him simply for defending German nationals being persecuted in Poland

Maybe he shouldn't have used false-flag operations to justify the invasion.

>>5435210
That depends entirely on what, where, and whom we're talking about. The basic ruling is as I described however. And it's not like all Islamic states had authoritarian conditions for some religions whereas every other state ever has been purely liberal.

>>5435132
This'd be funnier if we didn't have people that actually believed it come to this board every day

>>5435242
I'm talking about for the Christians in the Levant in the time preceding the Crusades. I want to say before the Abbasid revolution but I could be wrong. I just remember what they weren't allowed to do
>have services which could be heard by muslims outside
>have buildings higher than muslim buildings
>proselytize or otherwise gain converts

>>5435210
Just like Jews in Europe and Muslims in Reconquista Spain?

>>5435279
Spain for the Spaniards!

>>5435127
>Taxes have some sort of economic justification

Taxes finance government expenditures. A religious poll tax is no exception. I'd say that they tend to be justified more with political and social arguments, and these may or may not reflect the reality of the tax. Again, the tax we're talking about is no exception.

Would they be morally justifiable in your opinion if they contributed measurably to economic growth? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>What is the economic justification for taxing someone for having a different religion/race/creed/etc ?

See above. It depends on the motivation and needs of the government collecting them. These taxes can be levied in exchange for government services, as a reminder of social status, as a way of incentivizing adoption of the state's ideology, as a means of raising income under the guise of carrying out a religious duty...

Why throw race in the mix as if it and religion are interchangeable? Changing the religion you profess may have significant implications, but it's certainly possible to do.

>>5435261

Why in the world would a minority religion be allowed to proselytize in a religious state?

>>5435297
>Christianity in the Levant
>A minority religion during the early period of Muslim rule

>>5435261
That seems like a strange claim when there were many large Christian communities in the Levant at the time, especially in rural areas. IIRC, the first victims of the first crusade were Christians the Europeans confused for being Muslims because they lived near an abandoned fort. Anyway, the Umayyad's were famously racist, begin authoritarian to not just non-Muslims but non-Arab Muslims, so there's that.

>>5435328
I remember reading it in Runciman's 3 volume account. Don't have it on me otherwise I would have double checked. I still remember chuckling at his account of Byzantine Middle East where the Jews kept making problems for the Byzantines
>Opening doors to Jerusalem for the Persians
>Helping to put down a rebellion only to rise up in rebellion the next year
>helping the Muslims efficiently conquer the Holy Land by acting as their guides
The /pol/ack in me got a kick out of it.

>>5435303

Why in the world would a non-official religion be allowed to proselytize in a religious state?

>>5435350
That depends, how many times are you going to move the goalposts?

>>5435359

As many times as it takes for you to actually answer the question.

>>5435374
Fair enough. I don't really have an answer for you except to say that it is an infringement on the practice of the religion. Christians (as with most followers of religions) are commanded to spread the word of their faith. So it would be unfair to say that these people "were allowed to practice their religion" as that implies they are able to do so without restriction.

>>5435389
I think it just means they were legally protected and allowed to practice amongst themselves.

>>5435427
They were legally protected because of the principle of "people of the book" at first followed by a desire to not upset the Byzantine emperor who had control over some muslims following territorial exchanges between the caliphate and the empire. And again, the way they practiced it amongst themselves was still heavily restricted. They were effectively swept under the rug in muslim society.

>>5435389

I guess it depends on how you interpret freedom of religion. If we adopt a definition as broad as the one you're suggesting, there are plenty of religious groups in Western secular countries that haven't had full religious freedom:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

Christians are commanded to proselytize, but doing so isn't a sacrament or necessary for personal salvation. It's an encouraged practice—not an essential one.

It's probably more accurate to say that Christians were generally left to practice their religion freely as long as that practice did not directly challenge or undermine the official ideology. Again, though, I'd stress that their treatment varied depending on when and where they lived.

>>5435443
>Again, though, I'd stress that their treatment varied depending on when and where they lived.
Oh of course, some of the caliphs were very kind to the Christians under their control and even defended them against muslims within the realm.

>>5434926
No anon, the fact that Hitler invaded Poland meant he was going to try to conquer the world, the nazis were evil incarnate.

>to stop the widespread executions by secular courts

literally wut

im not knowledgeable about history, what was this all about?

>>5435581
>im not knowledgeable about history

neither is the OP

>all these wannabe Catholic faggots defending the crusades
>without understanding that the crusades substantially weakened the Christian cause and were generally ineffectual and/or hijacked by ambitious adventurers
>without understanding that while Islam was not a magical enlightened faith of purity and goodness it was not significantly more brutal than the Christianity of its day
>falling for uneducated romanticising of yesterday's Iraq War

>>5431451

"crusades were more than justified"

Are you sure it wasn't a nonsensical war over what most secular minds would consider a pretty insignificant piece of land?

>>5435984
WW1 was the most nonsensical war ever
Secular minds aren't a good judgment standard for anything.

>>5435581
Death penalty was very common back than and if you wanted to be judged fairly and have less of a chance of being killed you'd try to be judged by the Catholic Church since they were for the time a lot more humane.
(You can learn this from any legal history textbook)

>>5435581
The church did not have a death penalty in Canon Law (Ecclesia Abhorret a Sanguine)

>>5436958
they gave people to secular authorities (who well knew what they were supposed to do) and those burned them, we know. and this hypocrisy still justifies them

>>5436964
>burned them

This retarded fucking myth again. Maybe 50 000 people total were burned over the entire history of the inquisition.

>>5433421

acid, coke, shrooms, weed, mdma, speed and (to an extent) ketamine are all good for learning, fucking, reading, writing, partying, playing sport and a whole heap of other shit they make you perform at superhuman levels

you just need to learn how to use them

>>5436964
Burnings did not happen in any notable scale until the rise of reformation in Germany forced Inquisition to fight protestants with nail and tooth.

>>5431451
What difference does it all make? I mean are you looking for a right and wrong? The truth? The truth is in the philosophy of those involved. The "why" is going to have as many sides as it has participants.

The philosophy of these people during these times though, what they believed to be true, what your lords believe to be true today, the fact we still have organizations lording over us, that's all there is to know about history.

>>5433200
The level of nigga in this post is way over MMMMMMMMM

>>5433228
One of his more famous works is Birth of Purgatory (with a groundbreaking preface from what I heard).

http://www.pbs.org/inquisition/bibliography.html
The series isn't a bad overview, haven't checked through the sources individually for you.
>tfw reading szasz compare psychiatry to the inquisition and he's being too hard on the inquisition

>>5434092
>>5434057

>MMXIV
>using roman numerals in English

>>5435132
> Hitler for example never expected the whole world to attack him simply for defending German nationals being persecuted in Poland.

Hitler wasn't that stupid, was he ?

Catholic master race reporting in

>>5437069
Oh alright, thank you.

>>5431451
>>tfw i've been reading medieval history and came to realize that the inquisition was basically an attempt by the church to stop the widespread executions by secular courts and was merciful in comparison

all that mercy the pope showed the Cathars and Fraticelli

>>5437219

Stop raping me with your facts, heretical shitlord

>>5437219
>Cathars murder an emissary of the pope as they plead for peace
>Fraticelli parade up and down Italy openly pleading for revolt against the pope
>they should have been left in peace

>>5437213

Godspeed

>>5437237
>Fraticelli parade up and down Italy openly pleading for revolt against the pope

>protesters should be burned at the stake

>popery
>not even once

>>5431754
As an armchair historian and Catholic gotta agree they were pretty enlightened at the time
But equality under the law? Fuck no

>>5437283
>people calling for open war are innocents who din do nuffin

>>5431754
The irony is that this guy probably opposes European colonialism.

>>5437294
>your words killed muh chillins ears ban them

again

>people should be tortured and executed for speech alone

>popery
>not even once

>>5437312
Says the commie.

>>5437312
>We should totally allow heretics calling for open war within the realm to do as they please there is no way this can upset the stability of the realm
People like you are why nations fall.

PIDF is out in force

>>5437314
>not agreeing 100% with the catholic church makes someone a commie

k
>>5437319
people can call for whatever they want but unless they actually do anything they should be left alone

>>5437350
>unless they actually do anything they should be left alone
>believing this

>>5437360
>calls others commies
>ban free speech

>popery
>not even one time

>>5437387
>implying I called you a commie

>>5437308

Jesus, do people actually believe the shit written on that image?

>>5437393

see >>5437314

but really, why do you hate freedums?

>>5437413
I just don't think that it's inherently a right everyone is owed.

>>5437414
Well you are in luck as said right is very unevenly distributed due to the material conditions required to get one's speech out there and it is regulated in in many businesses, schools, courtrooms, and public spaces.

>>5437399
I love how it says "a thousand years later your *ancestors* piss on your grave"

>>5437414
ah,so you do hate freedom and humans rights

>>5437442
seriously though, I'm all for the 2nd amendment but what's wrong with background checks?

>>5437450
everything

is a right still a right if you have to have the permission from the gubmint to exercise it?

>>5437455
so are prisons a violation of the constitution?

>>5437461
>so are prisons a violation of the constitution?

no, because the constitution doesn't say "rights of the people to not be imprisoned shall not be infringed"

it merely states the right for a fair jury and due process of law

>>5437442
That image is bait right?

>>5437498
its satirizing gun control cartoons

>>5437506
It's also a horrid shoop. Keep /pol/shit out.

>>5437671
It's fairly accurate though. The vast majority of gun-crime is perpetrated by blacks. White-on-black gun crime is ridiculously rare by comparison.

If you want to argue for gun control, fine, but at least be aware that it's a very specific group causing essentially the entirety of the problem. Whatever the historical reasons behind that, the numbers don't lie.

>>5431741
>implying good scholarship transcends or isn't complemented by an authors beliefs/whatever's

>>5437682

Actually, according to FBI statistics, the level of white-on-white violence in the country is generally higher than that of minorities.

No really, look it up. I'll wait right here.

>>5437682

>>5437689
This isn't the place for this argument so I apologise for this post to any onlookers, and I won't be making any more, but:

>Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent were black, 46.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other races.
>Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

Remember the ratio of blacks/whites in America, and remember that Mexicans are being included in that "white" statistic, when they really do form a distinct subculture with much higher ratios of crime.

Not a racist in the slightest. It's a socioeconomic/cultural issue, that's all. Better ways to fight it than gun control bureaucracy.

>>5437715
>Not a racist in the slightest. It's a socioeconomic/cultural issue, that's all.

RAAACIIISSTTTTTT

>>5437715

As of 2011, at the very least:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

>>5437682
People really believe that the genes that manifest in higher amounts of melanin also manifest in increased gun violence. Holy fucking mother of fuck.

>>5434595
I would describe this growth as "the kind that can't be wiped off my monitor"

>>5437671
its a shoop from /k/ not /pol/

like pic related or this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmqk7k23Xo

>>5437742
Personally I do not subscribe to the idea that genetics are driving these figures, but that is clearly not the argument they're making.

Black people differ from whites in more ways than skin pigmentation: for example blacks are more susceptible to sickle-cell but more resistant to malaria compared to whites. What they're arguing is that there are also genetic differences that are correlated with skin colour, which explain (part of) the behavioral differences.

Even if that was the argument, it's not THAT outlandish. Look up the Russian experiments to breed domesticated foxes, for example. They were only selecting on behavior, but there was a very strong correlation between friendly behavior toward humans and appearance (appearance changes that also happened in the dog as it was domesticated, btw). Our understanding of the relationship between genes and phenotype is extremely limited.

>>5437742

>black people are just white people with colour

lol

>>5437742

>other symptoms of albinism in negroid individuals include heightened awareness of manners, increased civility, sharp drops in aggression, increased cognitive function and a penchant for cucumber sandwiches and tea.

>>5432317
You're the only one who comes off as an idiot friend.

>>5432904
Holy fuck, use some god damned punctuation.

/pol/fags go back to >>>/pol/

Keep your non-literature trash off the literature board.

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>5437857
>>5437836
>>5437829
>>5437742
>>5437721
>>5437715
>>5437682
>>5437506
>>5437442

only deleting half the /pol/ post

what is the pvrpose of this mods?

people crying over /pol/ are just as bad as /pol/