@B0ycey,
I vow for this to be my last post, as I have become somewhat disinterested in beating dead-horses regarding Persian and colonial history at this point and intend to say my peace on these points against the rising tide of parties interested in levying joint-criticism
ad verbosium & ad nauseum.
My next post will be on contemporary political issues, but still not so shallow as “did you see what Trump said this week!” or any other such headline-type political topics (at least for now). My next thread shall be a defense of another unpopular view, a supra-policy known as the Petro-Dollar. It shall be titled
“Long Live The Petro-Dollar.” For now, I must dispense with the pleasantries in order to deal with my amusingly arrogant critics as they are currently assembled.
Oxymandias wrote:Please, stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself in front of all the adults.
I must admit I found this bold declaration quite amusing, given that two “alleged” adults-in-the-room decided to coalesce, quit intentionally, in a double-team against the “alleged” inferior-child that was embarrassing himself.
One has to wonder, what sort of child is so child-like that it takes a formal alliance of two adults to put him to bed for the night? Perhaps, like everything else, I am also a superior parent and do not fully comprehend your attempt at a real-life analogy.
But, as you yourself stated, you are here to help out your buddy, as a returned favor of sorts:
Oxymandias wrote:Thank you for your arguments. Yes, I have already liked your posts but I simply want to do something more significant to show you my appreciation.
Given his view is so “in-vogue” in comparison to mine, I hardly see why he needs artificial likes and support, but I, nonetheless, do find it quite noble that you as a servant have come to rescue your master during his time of need. Indeed, he is in need of a lot of assistance as I shall demonstrate below simultaneously against both you and him, for with an abundance of words you have attempted to cover a simple reality of error that was made from the start. (It is a pleasure to be meeting you by the way, for the first time. Greetings.)
That being said, I must ask you a personal question regarding your relationship... I am very curious:
So…..when he blows his load in your mouth, do you require a beverage to wash it down? Or do you prefer a chaser after choking it down? I am legitimately curious as I am not privy to the dynamics of such a relationship.
In all seriousness though, I am the sort of eccentric faculty member who wears a green suit with a purple tie and offends the rest of his fellow academics with “unapproved” ideas and then goes and smokes a cigarette with the janitors on his lunch hour merely because he enjoys the superior company…I assure you, I am immune to your vain attempts at condescension, but bravo for the valiant attempt, I can hear you and your friend’s mutual ass-slapping even through the visual realm of cyber-space.
I will now deal with the main headings as I determine them, in address to your arguments which are a defense of your master's propositions.
I. On Scholarly Citation.Of the posters involved in this back-and-forth, I alone have cited multiple sources beyond Wikipedia which is generally regarded as an unacceptable source in academia. My own citation of Wikipedia was to show that the same general citation source used by my opponent also made claims that Persia was, for a very short period of time, officially Christian in the sense of state-sanctioned religion (evidence by state funds being used for the building of churches). This was merely to show that my MERE inclusion of Persia with the middle-east and North Africa on a list of places where Christianity was extinguished by early Islamic conquest was not unwarranted. That was all I ever claimed (but I will discuss this later below for my final word on the topic).
However, I find being criticized for this method to be quite rich, as I have cited scholars such as Dr. Peter Leihart who specializes in the classics and ancient history along with primary sources such as Eusebius. I have cited multiple works over-and-over again including the History of The British Empire by Sears, and Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin (the list goes on) and I have also interacted with the citations and articles presented by my opponent; whereas none of my citations have been engaged with and such sources should be in every gentleman’s library. Yet, when there exists mutual disagreement on Wikipedia sources, I am suddenly charged with being “unscholarly.” I’m sorry, but I am not the one who is embarrassing himself, only those whose posts are replete with Wikipedia hyperlinks can be said to be embarrassingly unscholarly and I am manifestly not that person. When I cite some scholarly approval of Christian ascendency to some form of short-lived official status in Persia, I am citing Wikipedia (nothing more and nothing less) just as ALL of the arguments by my opponents were cited. Thus, if my assertion on this point alone is unscholarly, then ALL of his arguments are unscholarly because they were all grounded in Wikipedia. Simple as that, at least I cited something else and therefore will have a leg to stand on in the final analysis. Of course, it would be good to remember, that this is a forum post and not a term-paper and I am well pleased that we are even having this discussion at all.
II. On PersiaLet me be clear on this. I stated, long ago, in a post that did not include any of my current opponents, that the Crusades were partly a retaliation for the loss of Christian gains to Islamic expansionism which included the Middle-East, North Africa, Persia, Much of Anatolia, and Visigoth Spain.
Someone was butt-hurt that I included Persia in this list. That is ALL, and I never defined in my original post what requisite qualities a region must possess in order to make this list.
Never. Therefore, the only defense I am obligated to make is that there is in some sense, any sense, that Persia could have been regarded Christian in order to make my list.
The state-sanctioning and funding of churches is literally all I need for such a justification to obtain and that has already been conceded by all of my opponents. You can disagree that this makes Persia a “Christian nation”
but as the one proposing the argument, according the laws of discourse, I am the one whose definition must be used in validating or invalidating my claims. Using Constantine I was an example,
I demonstrated and presented my definition in that the mere state sanctioning of the faith is a sufficient criteria to make my list and that such a simple criteria
has precedent in historical analysis, for neither % of the population, nor religious exclusionism, nor the conclusive conversion of the head-of-state can be said with certainty to obtain in the case of Constantine, and yet, that Constantine’s Rome is regarded as having become a Christian state is nearly uncontended not only by modern scholars but even by the primary sources themselves such as with Eusebius.
Thus, I am vindicated by my own historically justifiable definitions to include Persia on my list of Christian regions to have been lost to Islamic expansionism. You may not like it, but this is the indisputable case. I am justified in my original claim.
Period. III. On Slavery.My opponent made the claim that British colonialism in Africa was done for the purpose of perpetuating and maintaining the European slave trade. This has been shown to be historically false. The barbarity or lasting racial consequences of Trans-Atlantic v. Islamic slave trades
is irrelevant. The fact that not all local slave trades were perfectly eradicated or even given some “unofficial” tolerance
is irrelevant. What matters is whether the original claim of my opponent is true or false. He claimed that British colonialism of Africa had as its purpose and goal, to perpetuate and maintain European slavery. Is this claim true? No, It is Not. Therefore, I am right and he is wrong. The British did not colonize Africa to perpetuate and maintain European slavery and no one can dispute this claim without attempting to change the definitions. Including migrant labor or local tenant farmers is
NOT what we are talking about, permitting or turning a blind-eye to local customs is
NOT what we are talking about. The continuation of slavery by other states or other African nations is
NOT what we are talking about.
We are talking about his original claim. His claim is untrue. Period.IV. On Famines.My opponent made the claim that the British Empire oversaw man-made famines. Let us be clear,
this claim argues that the British maliciously, and willfully, committed genocide via the creation of anthropogenic famines. This is literally the claim being made, for my opponent holds the British responsible for these acts (insinuating some sort of racial animus) and claims that these famines were caused by man.
I argued, before any sources started flying around, that these famines were caused by droughts related to failed monsoon rains and that there did exist, in some instances, government mismanagement which exacerbated the situation.
All of this has been conceded by my opponents and by all of their own citations. The famines were
NOT anthropogenic, they were not man-made or cause by man, they were caused by droughts. That they were not mismanaged by the Empire was never claimed and is irrelevant to the argument made.
The question is, whether my opponent’s original claim was true or false. He claimed that the British Empire maliciously and intentionally oversaw man-made famines. Is this claim True? No, It Is Not. Therefore I am right and He is wrong. The British did not maliciously and willfully oversee anthropogenic (man-caused) famines. Such a claim cannot be made without changing the definitions. Including government mismanagement of natural disasters is
NOT what we are talking about. Discussing whether or not such famines were the worst in the history of India is
NOT what we are talking about. Discussing whether or not the Mughal Empire would have handled such famines, administratively, better than the British Empire is
NOT what we are talking about.
We are talking about his original claim. His original claim is untrue. Period.V. On African Civilization.You have already made concessions that we do not have enough information to demonstrate that these “cultures” were or were not civilizations under the criteria I have proposed. The problem is, that whether or not a culture was in fact a civilization
is almost entirely determined by what they have, in fact, left behind as a testament and impact to human posterity. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that these cultures were not civilizations. According to the rules of discourse, you cannot “prove” a negative. It is up to my opponent to prove his “claim” that these were in fact civilizations and if he does not have enough evidence to support these claims, we have no reason to assent to the proposition that “these cultures were civilizations.”
The lack of evidence you concede proves the point that we do not have enough evidence to demonstrate they are in fact civilizations, which is my point. I have argued, that there is not sufficient requisite accomplishments (based on what we know, of course) to claim these groups as civilizations. The questions is, is my claim True or False? Yes, It Is True. Therefore I am right and He is wrong.
We are talking about my original claim,
my original claim was true,
period.Now take your toys and go home, I must be moving on to bigger and better things.