Islamic Conquests vs. Western Colonization

the Arabs build their whole economy around slavery killing or converting everyone on their way of conquest and being today still proud of their "achievements",
whilst the Europeans just took the resources and land and tried to "teach" the natives the way of the white men, in a way that modern day people are disgusted by.

Liberals only care about the Iberian conquests.

Spaniards tortured natives and africans then creating a racist system that made them the wealthiest, healthiest, and most educated

Mexican here, can confirm "we brout civilizzatione and shiet" is a /pol/ wet dream. Colonization was brutal in most places, the Spanish empire was the most racist shit that has ever popped up. Rule under the britons would've been better desu.

You wouldn't exist in the first place had the Britons colonised Central and South America. Mexico would be now a bigger Belize.

>population full of mestizos=racist

kek

Islam has been argued to be a "constinuation" civilization, after Greece and Rome. Alexandrian learning flourished within Islam, indeed Rumi, for one, was given a classical education based in the texts of Aristotle. The highest position for a Philosopher to occupy within the Islamic world was that of "second teacher", always second to Aristotle.

Islamic civilization arguably invented modern science. And much of the texts we have from the Greeks have been translated from Arabic.

A very good case could be made that the American judicial and constitutional system was inspired by Islamic Law. Thomas Jefferson had a translation of the Quran. Indeed, Locke took classes on Islamic law, which were taught at Cambridge, which itself was modeled on the Al-Azhar university in Cairo- the oldest higher learning institution in the world.

One difference that most people get wrong is how important religious conversion was to either conquest.

In places conquered by Muslims, they typically remained minority Muslim for centuries, five centuries in Egypt and Persia, there was never a majority in Spain.

Christian conquests either prevented locals from converting, or forced it immediately. Indians couldn't convert easily in the British Empire (they'd lose inheritances if they did), meanwhile a century of direct control over Africa resulted in mass forced conversions.

better looking buildings

Esto, los sudacas sois objetivamente subnormales.
Despues de que os murierais de gripe los anglos se habrian llevado millones de negros para reemplazaros.

>Western colonization brought the values of Christianity, democracy, individualism and the belief in an afterlife for which it's worth to behave like a normal human to the New World.

Yep, as soon as I saw this thread I knew there would be at least one of you idiots.

it was catholic missionaries who exposed the abuse in the congo

Muslims were conquering in the name of Allah, Europeans were conquering in the name of Capital.

And yet Muslims didn't force the people they conquered to convert, while Christian conquests ended up majority Christian with two hundred years.

one required circumnavigation of the globe, the other didn't

Well Islamic conquest wasn't really about converting people in the start. The Arabs were super fucking elitist and didn't want any non-Arab to convert as they thought Islam was only for Arabs. The conquests themselves were usually just replacing the old governing bodies with Islamic ones and collecting taxes. The convert or die thing is pretty meme-tier, although it obviously did happen in places. Most of the converts to Islam were social converts and done by Sufi missionaries and merchants spreading the religion as the traded. Jizya was also not that bad in most cases, it was sometimes preferable to what either the Byzantines and Persians had been taxing the populations. There was also a big benefit to certain sects of Christianity to be under Islamic rule rather than Byzantine because Arians and the like were just Christians to the Muslims rather than heretics under Byzantines. Usually they were allowed to be judged by Christian laws rather than Islamic laws outside of really serious crimes.

The really nasty shit for western colonizations happens in the Americas and the really nasty shit for Islamic conquests happened in India. The Africans didn't fair so well under either, although in Islamic slavery children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves and slaves held lots of important positions.

>only white people can be racist

Only if you were a Mexica fucking shit. The Spaniards honored their treaties with their Tlaxcalan allies, granting then a great deal of autonomy and authority within colonial society.

Spain to Malaysia

>The really nasty shit for western colonizations happens in the Americas and the really nasty shit for Islamic conquests happened in India. The Africans didn't fair so well under either, although in Islamic slavery children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves and slaves held lots of important positions.

Hence why Sihkism was born. To directly combat muslims.

Also, weren't the chattel slaves of the Arabs simply castrated?

If only America had been smart enough to follow the Arab lesson that one

>Africa
>the New World

top kek

>muh Greek philosophers
>John Locke and Thomas Jefferson inspired by Islam just because he took some classes
>Islamic civilization arguably invented modern science

>If only America had been smart enough to follow the Arab lesson that one

The American slave-owners who didn't want to pay foreigners for new slaves?

The castration thing is a myth since 90% of them would have died if that was the case.

Mexico would have been better under muslim rule imo. Christianity brought nothing of value to Mesoamerica which had a more sophisticated religion and worldview vs the black and white good vs evil shit the spaniards brought. And afterlife beliefs already existed in much of the americas.

Slaves in America were super expensive, so getting free ones seemed like the better idea.

They betrayed them too by the 1600s

>which had a more sophisticated religion and worldview
not even a christcuck but kek

that's 180 degrees. The earth is a globe you know.

It's true if you are patient and wait for me to get home I can prove it.

...

>castration thing is a myth

stop lying, it's extremely well documented

>90% of them would have died

the death rate as a result of castration was nowhere near that high, but it was certainly substantial.

The overall death rate for male slaves certainly approached 90 percent though.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you attempting to say Muslims created colonies in Florida and South America?

did that happen to most africans though?

it didn't happen to every single male slave, and the females were all taken into sex slavery.

So strictly speaking, no.

youtube.com/watch?v=5XzThnFyjG0

if you've ever met a Christian you'd know that he will argue that God supports whatever the fuck he wants done, and that God has all the same prejudice that he has. It's such a joke to assume that Christians have ever actually followed their teachings, they introduced plenty of morally grey lessons that prepared Mexico for integration into the world much more easily than they ever could have slaughtering captives so the sun wouldn't kill them, and literally every Islamic country is shit so idk how you expect it would change anything for Mexico to be more culturally aligned with either indigenous or Islamic beliefs in a world surrounded by Christians. Their only problem really was the whole "spain" thing and none of their colonies really turned out all that well. Europe was able to flourish scientifically because it's so fucking easy to argue that christianity supports whatever the fuck you want it to support, and because the farce was such an elephant in the room that it inspired an entire generation of edgy enlightened liberals.

Christianity doesn't really get in the way of anything, at most it is your moral high ground and at the least it is an easily manipulated thing that can be bended when need be.

You sound like a typical college shit head that heard a few talking points from a professor and thinks he can make grand claims about culture and development.

>Belgium hired Blacks to keep order in the Congo and they chop'd off hands, therefore all of the European colonial experiences are negative
Nice fallacy.

Jefferson hated the shit out of Islam you dunce.

Spanish florida
Spanish South America

Portuguese South America
Portuguese Asia

Islamic Spain
Islamic Africa
Islamic ME
Islamic India
Islamic Malaysia

Fairly equivalent

>Implying secular humanism formed spontaneously and not slowly after several centuries.

Bitch nigga

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta#Other_terms

And each had a place in the hierarchy.

Like why the fuck would you make such a complex piece of shit that ends up being redundant as hell.

Oh look another product of the Western """" education """" system that thinks the Belgians chopped the limbs of Africans off as punishment and doesn't know that they were actually cut off by other Africans.

>Issue guns to Africans in order to enforce order in Belgian territory
>To prevent the Africans from using their guns outside of their official duties, institute a policy where shots fired must correlate to a verifiable body count thinking that no one could possibly be savage enough to cut peoples limbs off at random to make up the difference
>Africans proceed to use their guns to hunt bushmeat anyway and cut the limbs off of random villagers to make up the difference because Africa
>a hundred some odd years later people blame it on the Belgians because telling the truth about Africans be racist and shit

Muzzies like those jizya bux and also (for a time) viewed Islam as something for the Arab elite and didn't like to force conversions, though many Islamic leaders had no problem massacring populations they disliked.

Christians did a ton of awful shit once they got political power, and overall has a worse track record than Islamic governments until the last 150 years

this
it's hard to prove the British would have killed us all like in the US because the complex sedentarian Aztec and Inca cultures are quite different from the semi-nomad north american tribes who could not surrender, converted or agree to work like a slave once you conquer their land or kill their head of state. Also the Spanish didn't want to kill so many of us because it was better to own land in which there was a lot of indigenous people that could work your fields and my guess is the British would have done the same. You're retarded btw

>sudaca

>i'm from tamaulipas

you mad of my tall strong cowboy genes chilango manlet?

>pre-industrial americas

>photography

because the >DEUS VULT of the autistic cristero wars wasn't enough, no, we needed some pump ass >ALLAHU ACKBAR booming up so the americans could get pissed off and invade us

again

>grasping at historical anecdotes in some vain attempt to argue that science developed on the opposite side of the world as opposed to in Christian nations where virtually every major breakthrough that textbooks write about occurred

I'm sorry but you're retarded

Well, did the Belgians do anything to stop their subjects doing that in order to fulfill their obligations to the Belgians or did the Belgians condone it, after learning about it?

WRONG
>During the colonial period, the Tlaxcalans were successful in keeping the concessions granted to them by the Spanish crown. In 1585, when the territory of Tlaxcala was formally established, it roughly had the same borders as the old kingdom of Tlaxcala. While the neighboring territory of Puebla had some authority over this territory, the city of Tlaxcala remained independently governed until Mexican Independence in 1821.

>issue guns to africans

>issue guns to just colonized guys living in the iron age

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issue them guns

>belgium

Africans under the command of European officers and NCOs.

>Spain and Portugal are the entire West

There were no Islamic colonies in the Americas. European colonization required way more advanced tech than the Muslim conquests, deal with it.

>he doesn't know what circumnavigation is

The Congo Free State was not Belgian territory, it was privately owned by Leopold II.

Haha actually chopping off limbs in Africa is still a very big thing. It happens today.

On the contrary no one can remember the last time a Belgian chopped an arm off.

And?

Belgians are obviously more civilized

Spain and Portugal were first.

It's not really that impressive to sail around Africa.

And so if you're going to pretend to be horrified about it in olden times you should be just as outraged right now.

Why would Belgians condone Africans embezzling their ammunition and maiming the local workforce they Belgians were reliant upon on to harvest rubber? The rubber which was the only reason they were dicking around risking malaria in the African jungle in the first place?

Haha wat

Any coastal journey of that length is impressive even in modern times. At least back then no one had to deal with African coast pirates

>At least back then no one had to deal with African coast pirates

Because it worked in meeting the quotas.

People don't tend to think in the long term. Otherwise, poisoning one's own rivers, hunting the last animals and felling the last trees wouldn't be that much of a recurring theme throughout human history. Just look at how climate change is handled even today.

Graeco-Roman civilisation was already destroyed by Christcucks.

>brainlet doesn't know about the issues associated with sailing around the Southern tip of the African continent
>doesn't know why the Dutch established Cape Town

stop posting here, you are completely uneducated and it shows. There's a reason it was a massively big deal back in the day.

>tamaulipas
Cuidado no te rebanen la mocha los carteles.
Yo soy español no sudaca indo asqueroso.

>values of Christianity, democracy, individualism and the belief in an afterlife for which it's worth to behave like a normal human to the New World.
Funny that none of that applies to pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization either.

Good point
Except slavery was already in a lot of places the europeans colonized

>A very good case could be made that the American judicial and constitutional system was inspired by Islamic Law. Thomas Jefferson had a translation of the Quran.

Jefferson owned a book, therefore it inspired America's founding principles. Yeah, really good case Ahmad.

Only religious orders actually gave a shit about conversion Colonists themselves couldn't care less, as long as the native populations either A) fucked off or B) worked for em.

>Colonialism is cool and badass and a net positive when nonwhites do it

What's up with you guys being racist to mexicans and calling them south American yet still going to mexico as immigrants even in modern day?

>spanish genes
>tall
Lmoa

Islam must die>

>racist
>mexicans

mexican isnt a race, enrique.

Go to bed Obama, your high.

The only main difference is brutality (Westerners weren't as brutal and ruthless) and the West didn't seek total cultural assimilation.

Rest of this thread is just /pol/beards

You seem to know very little of Mesoamerica religion outside of human sacrifice.

It works when non abrahamic religions do it. Look at rome pre christianity, persia, the greeks. The problem with abrahamic religions is that they have the arrogance to assume only their god is the true and only one.

mexican cartel shithole also this

Does John Green have a positive opinion of the Romans?I don't even know.

He said they were Western version of the Mongols, which he loves. So that's probably a compliment.

they slave officers even

The muslims don't have it held against them today.

This could have been a great thread. However alot of /pol/tards here

You should get used to it by now these faggots are everywhere.

They are like isis they made a nation of faggots between boarders (get it)

>Westerners weren't as brutal and ruthless

>It's not really that impressive to sail around Africa.
Oh senpai keep 'em coming.

they weren't technically the first at all