Which was worse, the Islamization of India, or the Christianization of the Americas?

...

No. But then, euro polytheism was a lot more tolerant then christianity was. You could get killed by a asartru or whoever for loot, because he wanted to fuck your wife over your corpse, or because he wanted a sacrifice to one of his deities, but there's nothing like exclusivist monotheism for encouraging slaughter over idiotic points of nonsensical doctrine. Also abrahamic monotheism doesn't have temple prostitutes and also has a very sex-negative outlook on life.

The big three are just very miserable belief systems all in all. Give me the deities of classical myth, or even germanic, celtic or slavic myth instead. I don't believe in them either, but I know which culture I prefer to live in.

Nice cherrypicked image you have there.

You know the shantytowns were still there and about as bad in terms of squalor-to-space ratio during the other two dominions, right?

The buildings in the previous two regimes still exist and the slums still existed back then too. In fact, there has actually probably been some progress in certain parts of India despite the country remaining largely a shithole.

Effects such as population growth are also not considered here.

India is a gigantic country that is difficult to generalize in such a simplistic fashion.

This is not true
Hinduism today is vastly affected by islam

The islamization of Pakistan was worse because it destroyed the otherwise okay buddhist heartland

>islamization of pakistan
Why are so many people under the impression that pakistan has its own ethnicity when its just a place where most muslims all over south asia fled to after partition.
It makes no sense, it was india before independence and was a part of the various indian princely states before british.
Just to be clear, Mughals were NOT pakistani, nor were the conversions majorly carried out in pakistan compared to other indian states

I don't care what pooinloos do in their country. Atleast they are not blowing up buildings and trains in Europe/America like the hurka durkas.

>euro polytheism was a lot more tolerant then christianity was.
Yeah let's fucking forget the constant persecutions pf Christians in the pagan Roman Empire.
>You could get killed by a asartru or whoever for loot, because he wanted to fuck your wife over your corpse, or because he wanted a sacrifice to one of his deities, but there's nothing like exclusivist monotheism for encouraging slaughter over idiotic points of nonsensical doctrine.
So you're saying that you prefer religions that literally ENCOURAGE killing people rather than Christianity which doesn't support killing but is only perpetated by some violent individuals?
>Also abrahamic monotheism doesn't have temple prostitutes and also has a very sex-negative outlook on life.
>promoting degeneratism
Do you also support cuckoldry?

>Yeah let's fucking forget the constant persecutions pf Christians in the pagan Roman Empire.

They were persecuted for violating Roman laws and refusing to observe Roman customs. They weren't special.

>So you're saying that you prefer religions that literally ENCOURAGE killing people rather than Christianity which doesn't support killing but is only perpetated by some violent individuals?

Also, Augustine and Aquinas both supported performing violence against people with wrong beliefs. Are you a better theologian than either of them?

Never forget the six million christians, heathen *invades Jerusalem*

Christians brought everything on themselves

They literally walked up to Roman governors and demanded that they be martyred because Christianity is a fucking death cult.

even if you're sorta meme'ing, some pretty much did this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions

Their name escapes me, but do you mean the sect of Christians that were deemed heretical? In any case, Christianity doesn't require you to martyr yourself willy-nilly.

"...early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death."[15] According to Droge and Tabor, "in 185 the proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, was approached by a group of Christians demanding to be executed. The proconsul obliged some of them and then sent the rest away, saying that if they wanted to kill themselves there was plenty of rope available or cliffs they could jump off."[16] Such seeking after death is found in Tertullian's Scorpiace or in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch..."

The christianization of Europe

You've been blowing up buildings in hurka durka land first retard.

>Christianity which doesn't support killing
lol bullshit.

Anyone can look at what happened to polytheists after Theodosius took power and know for a fact that this is false.

>>Yeah let's fucking forget the constant persecutions pf Christians in the pagan Roman Empire.
Hmm I wonder why this happened, it couldn't have been because Christians were constantly causing trouble could it?

Hmm

>>promoting degeneratism
>>look mom I'm posting my favorite meme word again
Cry moar faggot.

>>Do you also support cuckoldry?
Not really my thing to be honest with you, but then again I doubt you even really know what that word means.

You don't really want to play the "who started what" game regarding christian vs muslim conflict because the muslims were the ones who first got this particular stupid sectarian feud going.

Not that I support either side obviously, but the snackbars can also go fuck themselves too.

Are you retarded? Do you honestly believe each conflict must be traced back to hour zero of history in order to be understood? Do you unironically think Muslims from 8th century and 21th century are one continuous entity?

What is today known as Islamic terrorism took its influence from the last century's leftist movements and is entirely a modern phenomena, completely severed from any historical Islamic Jihad by both methods and intentions.

They have found relevance because West is trying to export its decedent dying culture there with bombs and MTV. There was no Islamic terrorism in 1885, although many more people were actual practicing Muslims and most of Islamic lands were in control of Christian Westerners.

They have found relevance because West is trying to export its decedent dying culture there with bombs and MTV.

>>decedent dying culture
Keep thinking that mehmet.

From what I understand Mughal India was a pretty awful place what with being repressed and taxes so much.

> Islamic terrorism took its influence from the last century's leftist movements

[citation needed]

christian religion was toxic for the american natives, except in a few cases like the jesuit missions in South America where they had a neat system going on

Christians should've never found their way into Roman Europe or Arabia because that spawned Islam and mass Christendom.
Also Jews should've stayed polytheistic.

what if roman ways were much more imposed instead of them just assimilating across europe (and rome never fell), and christendom was never founded

Maybe we would have some kind of Mithraeic warrior cult still going.

Wasn't al-quaeda formed as a result of the Soviets trying to spread communism in Afghanistan?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which is worse, being boiled to death in oil or being given a delicious chocolate chip cookie?

>christianization of the Americas
>a bad thing
Oh noes that pure, holy and rational worship that sacrificed humans for the sake of the gods / goddesses by an evil religion that has a god sacrificing himself for the sake humans.

Was replaced by*

the latter

the Indians at least was able to hold on to their civilization, Natives didn't have a prayer.

>Natives didn't have a prayer
Huichol Cristeros disagree

What. The Inca Empire had prayers mate.

Oh yeah the inquisition was so much better, witch hunts, endless religious strife with protestant nations etc.

For the natives, a lot of them wound up being enslaved.