Originally posted by Seitsebasically it's just Saudi Arabia. the rest was taken by miltary conquest. how that makes it 'rightfully' theirs, i fail to see. but if you insist, then i guess you'd also have to say that the British have a 'right' to their entire former empire.
Dudette, you would be surprised what a big portion of the world should rightfully belong to the arab world. Actually, you would crap your pants, and I mean no little faint like 9-11.
😉
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyLet's not make this a debate, but here it goes...
basically it's just Saudi Arabia. the rest was taken by miltary conquest. how that makes it 'rightfully' theirs, i fail to see. but if you insist, then i guess you'd also have to say that the British have a 'right' to their entire former empire.
Unlike the Brits, the Arabs took to their conquered lands: true science, economic & social organization, art & culture; e.g. the architectural & cultural beauty of Spain lies solely in the Arab occupied land. The Brits brought with them only mayhem and famine... besides not being precisely educated.
I don't know what happened to a part of the Arab world these last century. But trust me, lots of what we study nowadays in school we owe it to them, i.e. math, medicine, politics, etc.
Look, at some point in history nothing belonged to everybody, and everything belonged to nobody.
Geez, people, how profound you all got with the joke about Texas being on loan from Mexico to the U.S. It's not a loan. It's Mexican, Just go there and speak Spanish in any corner of the state. It's being recovered culturally 😉
Originally posted by Seitsei also don't want to get into a debate, but i think some of your comments are inaccurate.
Let's not make this a debate, but here it goes...
Unlike the Brits, the Arabs took to their conquered lands: true science, economic & social organization, art & culture; e.g. the architectural & cultural beauty of Spain lies solely in the Arab occupied land. The Brits brought with them only mayhem and famine... besides not being precisely educated.
I do ...[text shortened]... t go there and speak Spanish in any corner of the state. It's being recovered culturally 😉
Unlike the Brits, the Arabs took to their conquered lands: true science, economic & social organization, art & culture; e.g. the architectural & cultural beauty of Spain lies solely in the Arab occupied land. The Brits brought with them only mayhem and famine... besides not being precisely educated.
The Brits bought democracy, their parliamentary system, their legal system and other social institutions to their empire - India, Malaysia, Singapore, Kenya and others are democracies because they belonged to the empire. As well, these places benefitted from exposure to British/Western technology. the tribes of their African possessions, for example, were throwing spears when the Brits arrived, but when they gained independence they had electricity, cars, trains, medicine that works, and a whole host of other benefits.
But trust me, lots of what we study nowadays in school we owe it to them, i.e. math, medicine, politics, etc.
The Arabs inherited most of that from the Greeks Sure, they made some incremental improvements in all these areas, but their main contrbution was to keep the knowledge alive while Europe went through her Dark Ages.
Look, at some point in history nothing belonged to everybody, and everything belonged to nobody.
Well, that's true enough.
Geez, people, how profound you all got with the joke about Texas being on loan from Mexico to the U.S. It's not a loan. It's Mexican, Just go there and speak Spanish in any corner of the state. It's being recovered culturally
Sure - they speak Spanish, the language of Mexico's European conquerors. If they really want to 'culturally recover' the land, maybe they should revert to one of their native languages.
2 edits
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI still don't want to get into a debate, but I think your inaccuracy observations require some accurate twists.
i also don't want to get into a debate, but i think some of your comments are inaccurate.
[b]Unlike the Brits, the Arabs took to their conquered lands: true science, economic & social organization, art & culture; e.g. the architectural & cultural beauty of Spain lies solely in the Arab occupied land. The Brits brought with them only mayhem and famine. culturally recover' the land, maybe they should revert to one of their native languages.
"The Brits bought democracy, their parliamentary system, their legal system and other social institutions to their empire"
The Brits did not invent democracy. By far. Original Aztecs and other Asian cultures had democratic practices and principles of tribal decision way before the British empire even experimented with it. Plus, constitutional Monarchy as we know it today is quite a recent invention.
The technological and economic development occured mainly to benefit the members of the British empire, not the locals, e.g. India. Moreover, the Brits, unlike the Spaniards, did not melt with the locals, but exterminated them.
On a final note, regarding the legal system, the common law system is built on top of much more developed systems, like the Germanic law and particularly (oh surprise) Islamic law.
"The Arabs inherited most of that from the Greeks Sure, they made some incremental improvements in all these areas, but their main contrbution was to keep the knowledge alive while Europe went through her Dark Ages."
Agreed. Then again, another thing to thank the Arab world for. Should they have not be the keepers and developers of Greek greatness, Europe would have stood from the Dark Ages... well... er... darker. European spirituality, science, culture and arts owe a lot to the Arab world.
"Sure - they speak Spanish, the language of Mexico's European conquerors. If they really want to 'culturally recover' the land, maybe they should revert to one of their native languages"
Mexico has no resemblance to its original inhabitants. It is a product of the religious, social, ethnic, and political melting of Spain and the more than 5 major cultures going from what is today Southern U.S. all the way down to Central America. Even Spanish spoken in Mexico is quite different from the peninsular one, not to say the culture and ethnic composition. What the people in Texas speak, eat, think and feel is far from Europe and close to Mexico.
Edit. AAARRRGGGHH, I don't know how to get rid of the bold!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Seitsei still don't want to get into a debate either, but:
I still don't want to get into a debate, but I think your inaccuracy observations require some accurate twists.
"The Brits bought democracy, their parliamentary system, their legal system and other social institutions to their empire"
The Brits did not invent democracy. By far. Original Aztecs and other Asian cultures had democratic practices and princi ...[text shortened]... d close to Mexico.
Edit. AAARRRGGGHH, I don't know how to get rid of the bold!! ðŸ˜
The Brits did not invent democracy. By far. Original Aztecs and other Asian cultures had democratic practices and principles of tribal decision way before the British empire even experimented with it. Plus, constitutional Monarchy as we know it today is quite a recent invention.
i didn't claim that the Brits invented democracy - merely that many countries in their former empire are democracies modelled on the British system, with the associated parliaments and legal systems. As far as i know the Athenians are generally credited with inventing democracy (the word itself is of course derived from the Greek). As for the Aztecs, they were still ripping the beating hearts out of sacrificial victims when the Spanish arrived. Tribal practices don't count, as tribes are, literally, uncivilised.
The technological and economic development occured mainly to benefit the members of the British empire, [b]not the locals, e.g. India.[/b]
True, but the benefit to them is a benefit, whether it was intended or not.
Moreover, the Brits, unlike the Spaniards, did not melt with the locals, but exterminated them.
Who exactly did the Brits exterminate? last time i looked, there were over 1bn Indians, and millions of Malaysians, Singaoreans, Kenyans etc.
On a final note, regarding the legal system, the common law system is built on top of much more developed systems, like the Germanic law and particularly (oh surprise) Islamic law.
First of all, i deny that these other systems are 'much more developed'. Second, i take it that you are not referring to Islamic sharia law? Third, if you have some credible evidence that the British commn law system was influenced by Islamic law, i'd be interested to see it.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyHow did you get rid of the bold?!
i still don't want to get into a debate either, but:
[b]The Brits did not invent democracy. By far. Original Aztecs and other Asian cultures had democratic practices and principles of tribal decision way before the British empire even experimented with it. Plus, constitutional Monarchy as we know it today is quite a recent invention.
i didn't c ...[text shortened]... t the British commn law system was influenced by Islamic law, i'd be interested to see it.[/b]
Ok, still not into a debate, but 🙂
i didn't claim that the Brits invented democracy - merely that many countries in their former empire are democracies modelled on the British system, with the associated parliaments and legal systems. As far as i know the Athenians are generally credited with inventing democracy (the word itself is of course derived from the Greek). As for the Aztecs, they were still ripping the beating hearts out of sacrificial victims when the Spanish arrived. Tribal practices don't count, as tribes are, literally, uncivilised.
Sorry for the usage of the word 'tribal'. The Aztecs, Mayans and Olmecs were fully developed civilizations, socially, economically and politically. The human sacrifice has nothing to do with development or not development. Let's not measure by 21st Century standards cultures that existed centuries ago. Hey, even we have stupid social practices today.
True, but the benefit to them is a benefit, whether it was intended or not. Who exactly did the Brits exterminate? last time i looked, there were over 1bn Indians, and millions of Malaysians, Singaoreans, Kenyans etc.
The benefit was residual to the main goal. I think that the "conquering style", though, is very important. Latin American original people would have been way worse should the conquerors be others than the Spaniards. Same goes for the Arab occupation of Spain.
On a final note, regarding the legal system, the common law system is built on top of much more developed systems, like the Germanic law and particularly (oh surprise) Islamic law.
First of all, i deny that these other systems are 'much more developed'. Second, i take it that you are not referring to Islamic sharia law? Third, if you have some credible evidence that the British commn law system was influenced by Islamic law, i'd be interested to see it.
Common law is a young system, compared to the others, and it owes its existence much more to them than to its own merits.
Amraphel, King of Shinar, author of four thousand year old Code of Hammurabi, set many of the central concepts contained within the philosophy of common law. Moreover, simultaneously with William the Conqueror's invasion of England, a revival of the study of Roman law began. As for Islamic law, I won't take a dive right now in my Zweigert and Kötz' book, lol... but the Normans and the Crusaders took a lot from the Islamic law to the benefit of England's current legal system
From wiki (my apologies):
In particular, the "royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif."
Originally posted by SeitseEh? Part of Spain's beauty lies in the mixture between both. Toledo is a prime example. Sure, Granada is amazing, but so are cities like Salamanca, Santiago de Compostela and Barcelona. And while the latter how very little to Muslim architecture and beauty, Granada is already a mixture of both.
the architectural & cultural beauty of Spain lies solely in the Arab occupied land.
Historically, Spain has been one of the most important Catholic countries in Europe. It's absurd to imply its beauty lies solely in the Moorish cultural and architectural heritage.
1 edit
Originally posted by Seitse[/b]i think you are applying double standards, in a couple of ways. first, you say that we oughtn't to judge the actions of past civilisations by our own 21st century standards, but in criticising British colonial practices, you are doing just that. second, you look for the roots of elements of British law, etc. in other cultures, but you don't do the same for Islam. it is as if you think that Islam originated these things, rather than itself inheriting them from earlier cultures. this isn't clear, though, as you also say:
How did you get rid of the bold?!
Ok, still not into a debate, but 🙂
[b]i didn't claim that the Brits invented democracy - merely that many countries in their former empire are democracies modelled on the British system, with the associated parliaments and legal systems. As far as i know the Athenians are generally credited with inventing democracy (th slamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif."[/i]
Amraphel, King of Shinar, author of four thousand year old Code of Hammurabi, set many of the central concepts contained within the philosophy of common law. Moreover, simultaneously with William the Conqueror's invasion of England, a revival of the study of Roman law began.
so perhaps the fairest thing to say is that common law had its origins here, and was transmitted to a number of subsequent cultures, including those of Islam and Britain. but democracy in Islamic states is a relatively new thing, i believe. perhaps Turkey was the first, in 1923, under Mustapha Kemal - who was greatly influenced by the West.
In particular, the "royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif.
as for this - setting aside the obvious doubts about wikipedia entries - it just notes an identification of concepts - it does not say that either one is derived from the other. this is consistent with independent development of the concepts.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaPerhaps I didn't state it clearly, sorry: The beauty is in the melt.
Eh? Part of Spain's beauty lies in the mixture between both. Toledo is a prime example. Sure, Granada is amazing, but so are cities like Salamanca, Santiago de Compostela and Barcelona. And while the latter how very little to Muslim architecture and beauty, Granada is already a mixture of both.
Historically, Spain has been one of the most important Cathol ...[text shortened]... t's absurd to imply its beauty lies solely in the Moorish cultural and architectural heritage.
A melt less rich in the British conquered world.
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyHa, you have the bold problem also! 🙂
i think you are applying double standards, in a couple of ways. first, you say that we oughtn't to judge the actions of past civilisations by our own 21st century standards, but in criticising British colonial practices, you are doing just that. second, you look for the roots of elements of British law, etc. in other cultures, but you don't do the sa is derived from the other. this is consistent with independent development of the concepts.[/b]
No, of course: In the social world, nothing originates spontaneously, and the ancient Arab culture owes itself too to other sources, and everything derives at some point from a caveman deciding to walk on two feet and making some fire.
In the core of my arguments: I am not saying the Arab world kicks butt and the British empire sucks. Basically, empires suck. I'm just saying that we owe a lot to the Arabs, and despite what has happened with some parts of it lately, it has tremendous positive features (before and today). Plus, it's older than the British empire.
And this is coming from a protestant.