anasawad wrote:First, you're talking about Khosrow the second not the first.
No, his wife was Christian, he was a Zoroastrian. Persia was in the first half of its history a Zoroastrian empire and in the second half an Islamic empire. Never once was it Christian nor Jewish nor had a majority of either at any stage of its time.
When Persia was not Zoroastrian nor Islamic, it was secular with majority Zoroastrian population.
You should try reading history a little more. Specially when you try to talk about my country.
Khosrou is an alternative spelling used by the same main source that you referenced, wikipedia. So you are wrong. Such alternative spellings are common for oriental names transliterated into english, but I am sure you are aware of that, another alternative spelling is Chosroes.
Likewise, I am referring to Khosrou I that reigned during the time of Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire A.D. 527-565. For Justinian I offered aid Khosrou I's son Nushizad in a rebellion. Khosrou II reigned from after A.D. 590.
He (Khosrou I), like Khosrou II, had a Christian wife. (notice the alternative spelling in the following book is Chosroes). Which, like I said, is common. https://books.google.com/booksid=IFdOAA ... on&f=false
You also failed to do your "research" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran
This article states:
"Persia is considered by some to have been briefly officially Christian. Khosrau I married a Christian wife, and his son Nushizad was also a Christian."
Which was my exact point, over-and-against your claims which were that Persia was "never" Christian . I claimed it was briefly Christian from this time frame, until the Islamic Conquest. Khosrou II even funded the building of churches, etc in his state and was arguably no less consistent in his views of state religion than the early Constantine I during the time of the Edict of Milan. Had Islamic expansion not taken out Persia and had the Mongols not converted to Islam, Persia would likely have been a Christian state by A.D. 750.
anasawad wrote:The abolitionist efforts in the British empire came at the end of the slavery era, and the damage was already done as 10s of millions were already enslaved and stolen from their homes.
Date manipulation and the likes of it don't work here, don't use it.
British colonization of Africa did not begin until after slavery was ended in 1833, it only had legal possession of the cape colony of South Africa (concretely) in 1814 (see Sears' History of the British Empire) which was its first real African possession and marked by historians as the start of British colonial endeavors in that land, but Britian was not involved in slavery in that roughly 15 year interim because of the efforts of William Wilberfoce.
I am defending an Anglosphere empire, a revitalized British Empire. British colonization of Africa was post-slavery and anti-slavery. This is called "accurate dating." The greatest colonial empire in Africa, the one that people think about when they think about colonization in Africa is Britian and it was abolitionist during its entire colonial history of that continent. You claimed otherwise, you are wrong. Its okay, people are wrong all the time, don't be so sensitive about it.
anasawad wrote:The British empire oversaw several man made famines that killed millions of people.
That was done by simply taking the food supplies to feed its army and also its own people.
Actually, did you read these, at all? The majority of these famines were caused by monsoon droughts, like I argued in my previous post to you, NONE were caused by British activity, and many if not most of them saw the British trying to get aid to the population which led to the British creating a store-house system to help the population when such monsoon-failure droughts occured (Once again, see Sears' History of the British Empire). Likewise, I did not deny that occasional mismanagement exacerbated the situation, in fact I admitted this did happen, but this also happended under every government rule. The Egyptians mismanaged famines, The Mughals mismanaged famines (worse than the British, i might add, who pioneered a non-discriminatory system of sub-continent wide aid and farm relief), and this happens because the scale and issues involved are massive in any famine. But the British tried to aleviate famines, they had no financial interest in the death of the local populace, the Christian missionaries had no interest in the death of the local populace, and the reputation of the Empire had no interest in the death of the local populace, your claims are ludicrous and conspiratorial.
anasawad wrote:While some regions of Africa were indeed populated by tribal nomads that had tough times over the ages. It also had vast wealthy nations with organized governments and plenty of resources spread across of it and not only the Islamic ones.
Eastern African coast nations and city states were also part of the Indian ocean trade lines and have a rich history.
Their conditions only saw a decline after being conquered by various European colonial empires. With many of their civilizations being destroyed or subdued.
So yes, for those, and they're many, European colonialism was and is the main reason for the collapse and the following suffering of their nations.
Well, the majority of this post is not a denial of my claim, but let me just tell you, civilizations did not exist in this region, there were no Empires in this region during the time of colonization, and they often lived in a constant state of war and ethnic cleansing of other rival tribes and kingdoms. These tribes did not have the technology, language, literature, music, military tactics, metaphysical complexity or concepts of mercy and charity that are seen in the massive empires of Europe that represent actual civilizations. Most North African and Ivory Coast kingdoms propogated the slave trade which the Europeans merely took advantage of in their early colonial history (about 300 years), which they had practiced for as long as we have any record. They were savages and that is why they were wiped out with such ease. You see, your assumption is that conquest is ipso facto immoral, which I deny. Conquest is perfectly moral, why else do you think I call myself "Victoribus Spolia."
anasawad wrote:The ones who did study in Britain and in Europe turned into the dictators and puppets whom are pro- UK, pro-US,pro-France, etc and astoundingly oppressive and genocidal towards their people.
The general public were in the overwhelming majority deprived from gaining and developing new skill sets for a modern economic system through education, which is why poverty is rampant across the continent.
This is all recorded history with countless evidence standing behind it. You'll find attempts to maneuver your argument around it generally useless.
What? Name the independent nations whose administrators had no foreign or western-style education whatsoever that were granted independence peacefully? Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe was western educated and was anti-western and fought a rebellion against Rhodesia and remains a genocidal racist lunatic. This is not a pro-western regime. Education did not help him or his country and after casting out white farmers his country went into chaos and poverty. They can't figure out how to farm the fertile African soils after thousands of years when we have farmed successfully in near artic conditions in Northern Europe and North America? Please. The people had NO skills before colonialism as mainly hunter-gatherers, but they are still not to the level of civilization, perhaps if we had stayed longer they could have been better trained (which is my fucking point). But this is still no excuse, most Europeans were illiterate when our Empires took over the world. What is Zimbabwe's excuse? They need us and would be in a better state if we were there.
anasawad wrote:It is your position, not mine, that continues to kill 100s of thousands and millions of people around the world till this very day, destroying dozens of nations in its path and ruining the lives of 10s of millions of people in the process.
Yeah, those numbers are fictious delusions of post-colonial propoganda. The British did not cause famines, you are wrong about Iran, you are wrong about British colonialism in regards to slavery, and you are wrong about African independence in relation to African education. You stand refuted.