CS Political/History Book Club...Whatcha Readin'?

[Skjellyfetti]

Geez, is that how you read what I said?

Your problem is you equate the Conquistadors with Catholics and use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Now it may well be that most of the Conquistadors were Catholics, but in my post I was talking about the Catholic clergy (the actual representatives of the church). Some collaborated in forced conversions, some did not. And the Catholic leadership (the bishops) was swift to seek to protect the native populations.

When the Conquistadors came to Mexico, they were intent on imposing their entire culture on the native population, only one aspect of which was Christianity. It was the Conquistadors which imposed forced conversions and enslaved native populations, and in this regard they had the support of some but certainly not all the Catholic missionaries who traveled with them. However, to say that the Catholic Church itself forced the conversion of the native populations is a misrepresentation of what happened.

The Catholic priests DID force the conversion of the native population... including burning natives alive en masse.

Google "Mexican Inquisition" sometime.

[JoltinJoe]

Geez, is that how you read what I said?

Your problem is you equate the Conquistadors with Catholics and use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Now it may well be that most of the Conquistadors were Catholics, but in my post I was talking about the Catholic clergy (the actual representatives of the church). Some collaborated in forced conversions, some did not. And the Catholic leadership (the bishops) was swift to seek to protect the native populations.

When the Conquistadors came to Mexico, they were intent on imposing their entire culture on the native population, only one aspect of which was Christianity. It was the Conquistadors which imposed forced conversions and enslaved native populations, and in this regard they had the support of some but certainly not all the Catholic missionaries who traveled with them. However, to say that the Catholic Church itself forced the conversion of the native populations is a misrepresentation of what happened.

The Catholic priests DID force the conversion of the native population... including burning natives alive en masse.

Google "Mexican Inquisition" sometime.

I assume you are not aware that the Spanish Inquisition/Mexican Inquisition was not under Church control? it was established and controlled by the Spanish monarchy. In fact, the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition as unlawful?

[Skjellyfetti]

I assume you are not aware that the Spanish Inquisition/Mexican Inquisition was not under Church control? In fact, the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition as unlawful?

It was still done by Catholic priests... in your last post you said it was the conquistadores that treated the indigenous populations inhumanely.... and not the priests. And that's not true. The vast majority of Catholic priests at the time were NOT comparable to Bartolome de las Casas.

[JoltinJoe]

I assume you are not aware that the Spanish Inquisition/Mexican Inquisition was not under Church control? In fact, the Pope condemned the Spanish Inquisition as unlawful?

It was still done by Catholic priests... in your last post you said it was the conquistadores that treated the indigenous populations inhumanely.... and not the priests. And that's not true.

NO!!! I've already acknowledged that there were Catholic priests who collaborated. My point is and has been that doesn't mean what they did, or what they collaborated in, was sanctioned by the Church leadership or the Church itself.

The Spanish Inquisition (and the Mexican Inquisition) were not instruments of the Catholic Church. They were established and controlled by the Spanish civil authorities and ultimately the Spanish crown. And the Catholic Church officially criticized them as unlawful.

[Skjellyfetti]

I was never arguing that it was sanctioned by the Church.

I was disagreeing with how you made it seem like a small minority of Catholic priests persecuted the indigenous populations... and that most spoke out against the brutality of the conquest. Maybe I misread it, I dunno.

No doubt, some Catholic missionaries traveling with the Spanish invaders involved in the conquests of the native populations engaged in acts of forced conversion, but many others opposed the enslavement of the native populations and reported acts of repression to their superiors in Europe.

[Grizalltheway]

Let me guess....you have a thing for boobs........























based on your literary choices.................Seems you like women with big breasts, too

Aren't you late for an Ayn Rand fan club meeting, dork?

[JoltinJoe]

I was never arguing that it was sanctioned by the Church.

I was disagreeing with your notion that most of the Catholic missionaries weren't persecuting the natives and that priests like Bartolome de las Casas are representative of the Catholic missionaries during Spanish colonial rule.

You made it sound like a small minority of Catholic priests persecuted the indigenous populations... and that most spoke out against the brutality of the conquest. Maybe I misread it, I dunno.

No doubt, some Catholic missionaries traveling with the Spanish invaders involved in the conquests of the native populations engaged in acts of forced conversion, but many others opposed the enslavement of the native populations and reported acts of repression to their superiors in Europe.

I believe it is true that far more Catholic clergy opposed what happened than collaborated in it. While we would never know about that for sure, what we do know for sure is that there is an abundance of first-hand accounts of the brutality of the Conquistadors and these "reporters" were Catholic clergy who reported what happened to their superiors in Spain. Without the accounts of the Catholic priests, we would have far less verifiable information about what happened.

[JoltinJoe]

BTW, now that you have gracefully retreated from your earlier remarks, here is another historical fact I'm sure you did not know. The Inquisition which was established by the Catholic Church was done in reaction to the method of dealing with heresy charges as enforced by secular authorities in those times, which included torture as a punishment, and which offered few procedural safeguards.

By claiming to assert jurisdiction over all aspect of heresy charges, the Church sought to introduce procedural safeguards, which included the requirements that the accused be formally charged so as to have notice of the accusations against him, and the requirement that evidence be produced. Also, since the Church had a prohibition against torture, those who were found guilty of heresy now received custodial terms under the protection of the Church, rather than torture or death. Previously, those who had been condemned for heresy had been turned over to secular authorities, and faced extreme penalties such as torture or death. By asserting jurisdiction over both charges and now punishment too, the Church sought to prevent excesses.

While the prosecution of heresy may not be one of the Church's finer moments, the commonly held perception that the Catholic Inquisition was equal to the Spanish Inquisition in terms of terror is false. Since heresy was a crime against the state, the Church's actions in meting out punishment served to prevent excesses which had been common previously when the state handed out the punishment.

[Cap'n Cat]

[D1B]

I was never arguing that it was sanctioned by the Church.

I was disagreeing with your notion that most of the Catholic missionaries weren't persecuting the natives and that priests like Bartolome de las Casas are representative of the Catholic missionaries during Spanish colonial rule.

You made it sound like a small minority of Catholic priests persecuted the indigenous populations... and that most spoke out against the brutality of the conquest. Maybe I misread it, I dunno.

I believe it is true that far more Catholic clergy opposed what happened than collaborated in it. While we would never know about that for sure, what we do know for sure is that there is an abundance of first-hand accounts of the brutality of the Conquistadors and these "reporters" were Catholic clergy who reported what happened to their superiors in Spain. Without the accounts of the Catholic priests, we would have far less verifiable information about what happened.

Catholic clergy were some of the only people who had the wealth, education and leisure time to write. They secured this easy lifestyly by brutalizing other people and stealing from them. Catholics also killed anyone who wrote anything negative about the church. No shit Joe the abundance of accounts speak highly of the catholics, you dumb fucker.

Oh, lets get this straight, the murderers and pillagers were ALL catholics. If you weren't a catholic in Spain at the time, you were hunted down and murdered.

[D1B]

BTW, now that you have gracefully retreated from your earlier remarks, here is another historical fact I'm sure you did not know. The Inquisition which was established by the Catholic Church was done in reaction to the method of dealing with heresy charges as enforced by secular authorities in those times, which included torture as a punishment, and which offered few procedural safeguards.

By claiming to assert jurisdiction over all aspect of heresy charges, the Church sought to introduce procedural safeguards, which included the requirements that the accused be formally charged so as to have notice of the accusations against him, and the requirement that evidence be produced. Also, since the Church had a prohibition against torture, those who were found guilty of heresy now received custodial terms under the protection of the Church, rather than torture or death. Previously, those who had been condemned for heresy had been turned over to secular authorities, and faced extreme penalties such as torture or death. By asserting jurisdiction over both charges and now punishment too, the Church sought to prevent excesses.

While the prosecution of heresy may not be one of the Church's finer moments, the commonly held perception that the Catholic Inquisition was equal to the Spanish Inquisition in terms of terror is false. Since heresy was a crime against the state, the Church's actions in meting out punishment served to prevent excesses which had been common previously when the state handed out the punishment.

You aint in court Joe. Your church has a sordid past, live with it and rejoice that atheists, secularists, deists, scientists, artists, women, philosophiers, writers and free thinkers gave their lives to make your church the less barbaric industry it is today.

[AZGrizFan]

I believe it is true that far more Catholic clergy opposed what happened than collaborated in it. While we would never know about that for sure, what we do know for sure is that there is an abundance of first-hand accounts of the brutality of the Conquistadors and these "reporters" were Catholic clergy who reported what happened to their superiors in Spain. Without the accounts of the Catholic priests, we would have far less verifiable information about what happened.

Catholic clergy were some of the only people who had the wealth, education and leisure time to write. They secured this easy lifestyly by brutalizing other people and stealing from them. Catholics also killed anyone who wrote anything negative about the church. No shit Joe the abundance of accounts speak highly of the catholics, you dumb fucker.

Oh, lets get this straight, the murderers and pillagers were ALL catholics. If you weren't a catholic in Spain at the time, you were hunted down and murdered.

Sounds like today's Muslims had good teachers.

[JoltinJoe]

BTW, now that you have gracefully retreated from your earlier remarks, here is another historical fact I'm sure you did not know. The Inquisition which was established by the Catholic Church was done in reaction to the method of dealing with heresy charges as enforced by secular authorities in those times, which included torture as a punishment, and which offered few procedural safeguards.

By claiming to assert jurisdiction over all aspect of heresy charges, the Church sought to introduce procedural safeguards, which included the requirements that the accused be formally charged so as to have notice of the accusations against him, and the requirement that evidence be produced. Also, since the Church had a prohibition against torture, those who were found guilty of heresy now received custodial terms under the protection of the Church, rather than torture or death. Previously, those who had been condemned for heresy had been turned over to secular authorities, and faced extreme penalties such as torture or death. By asserting jurisdiction over both charges and now punishment too, the Church sought to prevent excesses.

While the prosecution of heresy may not be one of the Church's finer moments, the commonly held perception that the Catholic Inquisition was equal to the Spanish Inquisition in terms of terror is false. Since heresy was a crime against the state, the Church's actions in meting out punishment served to prevent excesses which had been common previously when the state handed out the punishment.

You aint in court Joe. Your church has a sordid past, live with it and rejoice that atheists, secularists, deists, scientists, artists, women, philosophiers, writers and free thinkers gave their lives to make your church the less barbaric industry it is today.

The difference between you and your brother and me is that I can acknowledge the wrongful acts on the part of the priests, but I also see a balanced picture in which other priests and more notably church leaders stood up for the rights of the native population.

You have a distorted, slanted view which greatly exaggerates the wrongful conduct and ignores anything positive.

I posted a link above to what I said was a more balanced account of the history of the Catholic Church in Mexico. It includes a number of instances of wrongful conduct, but it also recites the positive. Neither you nor your brother have refuted anything recited in that account. You have some cartoonish outlook on history and refuse to deal with anything balanced.

[D1B]

You aint in court Joe. Your church has a sordid past, live with it and rejoice that atheists, secularists, deists, scientists, artists, women, philosophiers, writers and free thinkers gave their lives to make your church the less barbaric industry it is today.

The difference between you and your brother and me is that I can acknowledge the wrongful acts on the part of the priests, but I also see a balanced picture in which other priests and more notably church leaders stood up for the rights of the native population.

You have a distorted, slanted view which greatly exaggerates the wrongful conduct and ignores anything positive.

I posted a link above to what I said was a more balanced account of the history of the Catholic Church in Mexico. It includes a number of instances of wrongful conduct, but it also recites the positive. Neither you nor your brother have refuted anything recited in that account. You have some cartoonish outlook on history and refuse to deal with anything balanced.

Joe, we (not just me and my brother) are trying to teach you that it's not balanced. If the catholics acted according to the gospels values as tought by Jesus Christ, none of the atrocious acts of barbarism would have happened.

The brave catholic martyrs you speak of were the extreme minority, if not a total fabrication of the church - like it does regularly with saints. There was no balance.

The acts of tens of thousands of murdering catholic soldiers and their leaders cannot be overshadowed by the writings of one monk.

[JoltinJoe]

You know you and your brother do something which is prevalent in America (a land with a pervasive history of anti-Catholicism). If an atrocity was carried out by a monarchy in a predominantly Catholic state (such as the Spanish Inquisition), the Catholic Church is ultimately held accountable. (As noted, in fact, the Pope specifically condemned the Spanish Inquisition).

But when the atrocity was performed by a monarchy ruling in a predominantly non-Catholic state, the atrocity barely makes the radar screen. For example, probably about 57,000 Catholics were executed by Henry VIII but we barely hear a word of that. However, Bloody Mary (responsible for the deaths of fewer than 300) is reviled as an agent of the Catholic Church and has become synonymous with blood-thirsty religious zeal. Mind you, Elizabeth I was at least as inclined to religious violence as "Bloody Mary," but again that aspect of her reign is rarely discussed.

When it comes to Catholicism, your mentality is similar to those who smear all of Islam because of the acts of terrorists.

There are bad people who have been Catholic, and some have even been leaders in the church. Ultimately they are responsible, as individuals, for what they have done. Being balanced about these matters avoids accusations about collective guilt. Collective guilt in the hands of some can be a dangerous weapon.

[D1B]

Yeah Joe, again, you ain't in court. Monarchs derived their power from the church. Make all the excuses you want, the church is, your church is the primary culprit.

Your church made a fortune fleecing the poor and ravaging defensless nations.

They were all catholic. Fact.

[CitadelGrad]

Halfway through Triumphs & Tragedy: A History of the Mexican People, by Ramon Eduardo Ruiz, a professor at Cal State - San Diego.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Very good, deep history of all that has happened to the Mexican people and their ancestors from Mayan and Aztec times to 1993. Emphasis thus far is on the tragedy that is the Mexican experience. Right now, reading about how America took advantage of a very poor and disorganized state, went to, ahem, "war", and stole millions of square miles of land from them. Conks would get major wood if they were reading the stories about fvcks like Polk and Houston and Travis and Stephen F. Austin and their ilk. No surprise that the Catholic Church plays of pivotal role in keeping the people down, too.

At the book's midpoint, Cap'n Cat gives it a 3.7 out of 4 stars.

Looks like an interesting read. Just added it to my queue. An amazing country and an amazing people.

If it's so god damned amazing, why don't all those amazing produce pickers stay in it?

[JoltinJoe]

Monarchs derived their power from the church. ...

Your church made a fortune fleecing the poor and ravaging defensless nations.

The first statement is absolutely false.

The second statement equates the Conquistadors and the Catholic Church.

[D1B]

Monarchs derived their power from the church. ...

Your church made a fortune fleecing the poor and ravaging defensless nations.

The first statement is absolutely false.

The second statement equates the Conquistadors and the Catholic Church.

Bullshit and

The conquistadors were catholic.

[Ibanez]

This is a doctoral disertation which is very lengthy. The author utilizes superflous verbage to get the same point across, in different ways. However, this is an interesting read on the actions (or inactions) of the German people and thier anti-semitism. There are documents, reporsts,etc.. from all over the 3rd Reich where the German people would stand upagainst Hitler when the party would pass a certain law that they didn't like. There would be mass riots until the laws were repealed. It is noted, that this didn't happen when the Jews were the targets of the race and purity laws. It's a good read, but a slow one.

[Appaholic]

Reading 4 different books right now...

Mighty Fitz: Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald - Michael Schumacher

The War Within - Bob Woodward

Band of Brothers - Stephen Ambrose

A Frzone Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940 - William Trotter

[Cap'n Cat]

Reading 4 different books right now...

Mighty Fitz: Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald - Michael Schumacher

The War Within - Bob Woodward

Band of Brothers - Stephen Ambrose

A Frzone Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940 - William Trotter

Looks cool, Appy. Have seen a lot of docuemtaries on the Russo-Finnish War. May have to get that one.

[D1B]

Reading 4 different books right now...

Mighty Fitz: Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald - Michael Schumacher

The War Within - Bob Woodward

Band of Brothers - Stephen Ambrose

A Frzone Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-1940 - William Trotter

Looks cool, Appy. Have seen a lot of docuemtaries on the Russo-Finnish War. May have to get that one.

How bout getting a membership to the local health club, Tubby Raymond.

[Cap'n Cat]

Looks cool, Appy. Have seen a lot of docuemtaries on the Russo-Finnish War. May have to get that one.

How bout getting a membership to the local health club, Tubby Raymond.

Wanna die informed, not thin.

[JoltinJoe]

How bout getting a membership to the local health club, Tubby Raymond.

Wanna die informed, not thin.

One out of two.