Türkiye
0
Nope... The indigenous Mexicans (as well as most Amerindians) were exterminated by smallpox, more swiftly than any conquest could have undone them:Originally Posted by Gilgamesh900
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Indian_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...ation_overview"American Indian Holocaust" is a term used by American Indian activists[citation needed] to bring attention to what they contend is the deliberate mass destruction of American Indian populations following the European arrival in the Americas, a subject which they allege has hitherto received very limited mention in history, partially because most of the deaths happened before European chroniclers arrived to record them.
Estimates of the pre-Columbian population vary widely, though uncontroversial studies place the figure for North, Central and South America at a combined 50 million to 100 million,[1] with scholarly estimates of 2 million[2] to 18 million[3] for North America alone. An estimated 80% to 90% of this population died after the arrival of Europeans,[4] overwhelmingly from factors beyond most human control — e.g., smallpox epidemics[5] — Europeans, especially the Spanish conquistadors, also killed thousands deliberately.[citation needed]
As you can see, imported Eurasian/African contagious diseases killed more people in the Americas than Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and Hulagu combined... above all though, there could be no reasonable explanation of the deaths at the time, which explains why the Amerindians were more likely to convert than other people: If the deaths could not be attributed to a conqueror, but the divine, and the divine was killing the natives, then the "god of the invaders" was probably stronger than the "god of the natives", something that would prompt natives to convert in order to save themselves!!! Of course that didn't work, but in any case the Amerindians could not possibly put up a fight with 90% of their population annihilated, usually before the Europeans contacted the most of the demised...Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, even semi-accurate pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain. Scholars have varied widely on the estimated size of the indigenous populations prior to colonization and on the effects of European contact.[3] Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely.[4]
Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of 90% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).[5] Latin America would match its 15th century population early in the 20th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005.[5] In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people.[5] The Maya population is today estimated at six million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates.[5] In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated four million to some 300,000.
While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[7]
The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[8] and two million,[9] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[10] Repeated outbreaks of Old World infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), were the main cause of depopulation. This combined with other factors such as dispossession from European/Canadian settlements and numerous violent conflicts resulted in a forty- to eighty-percent aboriginal population decrease after contact.[8] For example, during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in what became Canada. They were reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.[11]
Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as "pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.[12] Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.
The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[13] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."[14] On the other hand, some[who?] have claimed that contemporary estimates of a high pre-Columbian indigenous population are rooted in a bias against Western civilization and/or Christianity.
The indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have been in decline in some areas. Indigenous populations in most areas of the Americas reached a low point by the early 20th century. In most cases, populations have since begun to climb.[15]
Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans.[21] They reject both of the earliest European immigrants' explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first explanation was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves. This was applied through the encomienda which was a system ostensibly set up to protect people from warring tribes as well as to teach them the Spanish language and the Catholic religion, but in practice was tantamount to slavery.[22] The most notable account was that of the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas, whose writings vividly depict Spanish atrocities committed in particular against the Taínos. It took five years for the Taíno rebellion to be quelled by both the Real Audiencia—through diplomatic sabotage, and through the Indian auxiliaries fighting with the Spanish.[23] After Emperor Charles V personally eradicated the notion of the encomienda system as a use for slave labour, there were not enough Spanish to have caused such a large population decline.[24][25] The second European explanation was a perceived divine approval, in which God removed the natives as part of His "divine plan" to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many native Americans viewed their troubles in terms of religious or supernatural causes within their own belief systems.
Soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of Europe and Africa, observers noted immense numbers of indigenous Americans began to die from these diseases. One reason this death toll was overlooked is that once introduced, the diseases raced ahead of European immigration in many areas. Disease killed off a sizable portion of the populations before European observations (and thus written records) were made. After the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of natives, many newer European immigrants assumed that there had always been relatively few indigenous peoples. The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas—and creating one of "the greatest human catastrophe in history, far exceeding even the disaster of the Black Death of medieval Europe",[26] which had killed up to one-third of the people in Europe and Asia between 1347 and 1351. The Black Death occurred to a European population which also had not been exposed and had little or no resistance to a new disease.
One of the most devastating diseases was smallpox, but other deadly diseases included typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever, and pertussis (whooping cough), which were chronic in Eurasia. The indigenous Americas also had a number of endemic diseases, such as tuberculosis and an unusually virulent type of syphilis, which soon became rampant when brought back to the Old World.[citation needed] (This transfer of disease between the Old and New Worlds was part of the phenomenon known as the "Columbian Exchange"). The diseases brought to the New World proved to be exceptionally deadly to the Native Americans.
The epidemics had very different effects in different regions of the Americas. The most vulnerable groups were those with a relatively small population and few built-up immunities. Many island-based groups were annihilated. The Caribs and Arawaks of the Caribbean nearly ceased to exist, as did the Beothuks of Newfoundland. While disease raged swiftly through the densely populated empires of Mesoamerica, the more scattered populations of North America saw a slower spread.
In the other hand, those who resisted Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and Hulagu could see that they were exterminated by human hand and not a "divine cause", and thus still maintain their religion.This has two explanations:
There are peoples who are more resistant to change in religion than others, but at the same time, many Christians of the ottoman empires mostly came from the balkans like bulgarians, greeks and etc, while christians are minority in the middle east.
A) Tamerlane/Hulagu e.t.c. didn't campaign that much in the Balkans in the first place - Hulagu probably not at all...
B) The current demography is the result of population exchanges and migrations following the exact same pattern for centuries now.
The Ottomans certainly didn't have a positive view of the Arabs, but hey! They didn't have a positive view of the Turks either! I bet that during the last half of the Ottoman empire, the Europeans were more favorably viewed by the Porte than the Ottoman citizens themselves...
Lebanon has more balanced religious demographics in comparison to other countries which is good, but many Christians began leaving their respective countries for the western world due to discriminatory policies of the late ottoman and the young turks in the late 19th century and early 20th century. I dont believe that Ottoman turks ever saw us as their brethren, and instead looked at us as racial inferior beings like Al-Suavi.
The Middle East did never have a democracy, and this is beyond Arabs, Turks, even Russians... I'll have to explain the difference between coastal Europe and continental Asia/Africa in some lengthy post in the future...
Your right about Muslims who are defending my people not out of pity but rather based on personal gains. There are a lot of Muslim politicians in the parliament of Lebanon who keep hypocritically condemning Israel for its treatment towards my people while they were massacring my people during the Lebanese civil war in the 70's and 80's, and they were the ones who passes discriminatory policies on my people in Lebanon forbidding any Palestinian to work in any white collar jobs, to own land, move freely, allow construction materials, infrastructure and etc.
Assads' regime just like Husseins' regime and Gaddafis' regime were better than their immediate successors, but this is not necessarily a bad turn for any of them. All of the world' states and/or empires tend to crumble at some point, and all of them have a nasty aftermath, with few exceptions. Of course the most admirable course was that taken by Attalus II of Pergamon who bequeathed his state (Pergamos) to the Romans, and thus avoided one more unnecessary war, but this is merely the exception. Even though the sacking of cities was a common trend during the antiquity, nowadays we face the sacking of significant portions of entire countries, and repeatedly, as it happens today in the above examples, and this is worse than what used to happen in Ancient Greece for example.
Thats why i like bashar al-assad, because he is a nationalist and secular who brought unity, peace and stability in his nation where muslims and christians living together in peace without any friction between the two peoples, while erdo-cunt and the islamist governments in the middle east are helping ISIS and other islamist terrorists in destroying any stable nation in the middle east, and yes, Israel keep helping the militants in the golan even as well.
As I have told the Turks, democracy is useless to an uneducated people. Democracy could not possibly help a bunch of monkeys to create a peaceful society. This is where even wealthy Arab states fail miserably (mostly Saudi Arabia) while Israel has never managed to create a society of truly equal people. You can see it from the way Israeli parties form: A party representing the immigrants from Africa, another party representing the immigrants from East Europe, a third party representing Arabs... I wonder whether the Druze vote for the Arab party or if they have their own too...I'd like to see sources. Perhaps the ~3 centuries from the conquest of the Middle East until the arrival of Tamerlane was enough, but I wouldn't bet on it. In any case, one would have to read a lot of those Arab geographers to make sure they were reliable and without a confirmation bias. I could vouch for every single work Thukydides wrote or Herodotus claimed to have seen with his own eyes (his third party accounts are notoriously unreliable, but he never suggests them to be true!) but others like Pausanias are not exactly reliable by any means... The works of other authors are pure propaganda (e.g. Cosmas Indicopleustes e.t.c.)
There were arab geographers in the early 10th century and before describing the majority of the levantines as muslims with small number of christians and druze living in the area so it wasnt really majority christians in the early middle ages.
The Persians are among the earliest civilized people, and they have never fallen too much behind either in terms of civilization. Tradition can sometimes overcome religious upheavals...
The Persians were muslims in the early middle ages but that dosent mean they went on killing other people and etc, and instead, they contributed many scientific achievements and etc.
This is how it worked in the Ottoman empire, and I bet in the Arab Muslim states as well, but it is a slow process. Beyond that, the Turks would often not allow Christians to convert because they needed more of lower classes... Something that I've never heard of the Arabs ever trying to do in a mass scale.
There are people who are willing to convert to other religions if it helped them in achieving power.
Countries like Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain are overshadowed by the elephant in the room which is Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, UAE has been responsible for much of the mayhem in the Middle East by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood almost unconditionally, and the Muslim Brotherhoods' priorities were to slaughter the pigs of Egypt I guess...
Like i said, i lived in Oman and the UAE my entire life, and all of the religious minorities in those countries dont have any problems living here or in oman whatsoever. I'm surprised that people dont even know the countries like UAE and Oman in America, and they seem to think all of the middle east like saudi arabia.
Kinda funny... Egypt is finally stable after the Morsi mess, and hopefully tourism shall pick up again after the Europeans learn that the Salafists won't chase them for holding hands in the streets... Anyway, I hope that the UAE has grown some brain too. They are certainly involved at bombing ISIS, but just before they did support the Muslim fundamentalists before they turned into ISIS. In any case, all of them Sunnis want Assad overthrown, because he is an Alawite. Personally, I don't see either Assad or Sissi with positive light, but they are way way better than anything any meaningful opposition can offer to their respective countries...
Coptic Pope praises UAE leaders for supporting stability in Egypt
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/coptic...ility-in-egypt
http://www.thenational.ae/uae/coptic...ility-in-egypt
I am really surprised that Sunnis are not at the Ibadis' throats the way they are in the Shias' throats. I guess they are too few to perceive them as a threat...
Reply With Quote
England
Bookmarks