The European invasion of North America started in 1492, .... In retrospect one could claim that an "invasion" occurred in 1492. But there is an alternative viewpoint, that Columbus could be considered the leading edge of European refugees. We seem to forget that the Muslims nearly overran Europe.

While Spain was able to kick-out the Moors in 1492, Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople) fell in 1453 and the Muslims made steady progress into Eastern Europe until the Battle of Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna) in July 1683.

As for Russia, the Mongol Empire dissolved may have dissolved in 1368 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire), but the Grand Duchy of Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Moscow) apparently did not gain full independence until 1480.

One could say that the countries of Western Europe were relatively weak around 1500 and the population of Western Europe was on the verge of a diaspora to America. Western Europe, may have emerged as a set of powerful countries, but it has left Eastern Europe, in a sense, "orphaned".

To classify the European invaders as refugees is ridiculous. They murdered and plundered their way across both the Americas with zero concern for the existing people and cultures.

To classify the European invaders as refugees is ridiculous. They murdered and plundered their way across both the Americas with zero concern for the existing people and cultures.

I don't remember it starting out that way though. The people who did most of the murdering and plundering were born within the US territories. The initial people coming across the pond could very well be described as refugees IMO.

I don't remember it starting out that way though. Didn't think you were that old, Vass:DThe people who did most of the murdering and plundering were born within the US territories. The initial people coming across the pond could very well be described as refugees IMO.The Pilgrim Fathers were definitely fleeing from religious persecution when they sailed in the Mayflower

Didn't think you were that old, Vass :D The Pilgrim Fathers were definitely fleeing from religious persecution when they sailed in the Mayflower

Right, and I don't think conquering territory was on their mind. They were just looking for someplace to start new and be welcomed, which they initially were.

I've been around a few centuries. I could still learn a thing or two from Rich though. :p

Right, and I don't think conquering territory was on their mind. They were just looking for someplace to start new and be welcomed, which they initially were. Moving east, was blocked as an option by the Muslim expansion. Consequently Western Europeans essentially had "west" as the only movement option. West, as in America, offered space and resources. Try to move East, you might get slaughtered.

OK, that might be an exaggeration, but you would be moving into "conquered" territory where you would be the subject of some despotic ruler as opposed to being your own despot in North America. Moreover can you imagine the Pilgrims fighting the Muslims for territory? The choice was clear, go West.

Update: After posting I did run across this Wikipedia article, Protestantism and Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam). It presents a more favorable view toward Western Europeans seeking religious freedom in Muslim occupied areas. Another point, the article notes how Western Europeans countries and the Ottoman Empire had shifting political alliances.

The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth rock in 1620. 1620 also saw the defeat of the Poles at the Battle of Tutora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_%C5%A2u%C5%A3ora_%281620%29). The Wikipedia article on the Battle of Tutura goes on to say that following this victory and another victory that the Ottoman's attempted to move into the Ukraine, but that advance ran out of steam.

While the Muslims may have had some tolerance for religious refugees, the refugees themselves may not have had an interest in settling areas were war was an active activity.

From an historical view, the (mostly) English peoples who were the original colonists in what is now the USA were interested in religious freedom, land and money (not necessarily in that order).
The Puritans who were saved from starvation by the local native peoples in New England in the first Thanksgiving soon slaughtered these same native peoples as they did not wish to give up their lands to the expanding colonies.

In Canada, the French realized they had a good deal as the native peoples were more than happy to trade their animal pelts for trinkets and baubles in Quebec. The result is that there were few problems (until later) as the French government discouraged colonization in favor of the fur trade. The French traders had a vested interest in keeping the native peoples alive and working.

The Pilgrim Fathers were definitely fleeing from religious persecution when they sailed in the Mayflower

Why weren't they persecuted when they docked in Plymouth for repairs?

A little known story of ethnic cleansing. A 60 Minute Interview with Patriarch Bartholomew (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6001717n&tag=related;photovideo). While this interview is a story of "today", it further reinforces the continued multi-century "push" of Moslems forcing Christians to move west. Columbus was simply an early adopter. Regretfully, western European history books seem to only consider the diaspora of Christians as a footnote, not as significant cultural heritage loss.

Hmm maybe we should look more closely at this so we can learn what happened and then use what we learn to get rid of the rest of the theists.

Hmm maybe we should look more closely at this so we can learn what happened and then use what we learn to get rid of the rest of the theists.

Report back when you have learnt something then.

Hmm maybe we should look more closely at this so we can learn what happened and then use what we learn to get rid of the rest of the theists.

Is this meant to be humorous? Or merely bad taste?

Is this meant to be humorous? Or merely bad taste?

Which ever you prefer.

Which ever you prefer.

So you mean it however its received - so if lots of theists find it insulting, and antagonistic that was your intention?

Surely you have higher aspirations?

So you mean it however its received - so if lots of theists find it insulting, and antagonistic that was your intention?



I don't care how people take it, that's upto them.

I don't care how people take it that's upto them.

How sad. Grow up, and stop trying to spoil a thread.

How sad. Grow up, and stop trying to spoil a thread.

I just merely expressed my view that diaspora wasn't a cultural loss.

Some may find my comment controversial or something but thats upto them.

It would appear to you are the one ruining the thread with your stunningly inaccurate and fatuous analysis of my comments.

It would appear to you are the one ruining the thread with your stunningly inaccurate and fatuous analysis of my comments.

I thought you didn't care how people interpreted your comments?

Make your mind up?

I thought you didn't care how people interpreted your comments?

Make your mind up?

I don't care how people interpret them but your posts did not regard the intepretation of my comments but instead an analysis of their purpose.

Your analysis is incorrect, and indeed hypocritical, as you seem intent on pursuing your pseudo intellectual analysis despite it taking the thread off topic.

Seeing as my original post is on topic and the rest of my comment have been answers to questions posed it is indeed you who are ruining this thread.

I don't care how people interpret them but your posts did not regard the intepretation of my comments but instead an analysis of their purpose.

Your analysis is incorrect, and indeed hypocritical, as you seem intent on pursuing your pseudo intellectual analysis despite it taking the thread off topic.

Seeing as my original post is on topic and the rest of my comment have been answers to questions posed it is indeed you who are ruining this thread.

Your posts have no purpose - not one worth investigating anyway. Fair enough. I think were almost agreed.

Your posts have no purpose - not one worth investigating anyway.

It would seem my posts are a bit like you then :rolleyes:

It would seem my posts are a bit like you then :rolleyes:


Whooo hooooo - clever boy.

Hmm maybe we should look more closely at this so we can learn what happened and then use what we learn to get rid of the rest of the theists. Wikipedia writes: "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)" Both Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, so how would a "religious" war remove all theists? I presume you must be conjecturing some sort of mutual self destruction.

History, however, would seem to refute true mutual self destruction. While many wars have been pursued for religious objectives, wars have also been pursued for economic/political reasons. I seriously doubt that the Viking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion)raids on England were for religious reasons as was the sacking of Rome following the Battle of the Allia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia). Wikipedia wrote: "Prior to the battle, the Senones, a single tribe of Gaul, traversed the Appennines searching for new land to settle. They eventually camped outside the town of Clusium (in the Etruscan province of Siena) and began negotiations for land rights." When the negotiations broke down - war ensued. Concerning the Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion), Wikipedia writes: "The motives driving the Viking expansion form a topic of much debate in Nordic history. One common theory posits that the Viking population had outgrown agricultural potential of their Scandinavian homeland." War, unfortunately, seems to be part of human culture, eliminating theism from the equation would not seem to eliminate war.

Wikipedia writes: "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)" Both Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, so how would a "religious" war remove all theists? I presume you must be conjecturing some sort of mutual self destruction.

History, however, would seem to refute true mutual self destruction. While many wars have been pursued for religious objectives, wars have also been pursued for economic/political reasons. I seriously doubt that the Viking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion)raids on England were for religious reasons as was the sacking of Rome following the Battle of the Allia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia). Wikipedia wrote: "Prior to the battle, the Senones, a single tribe of Gaul, traversed the Appennines searching for new land to settle. They eventually camped outside the town of Clusium (in the Etruscan province of Siena) and began negotiations for land rights." When the negotiations broke down - war ensued. War, unfortunately, seems to be part of human culture, eliminating theism from the equation would not seem to eliminate war.

I wasn't particularly referring to a war but more just a wish for theists to be far away from me.

I've reread the thread a few times now and I am not sure what your overall point is? Could you summarise it for me?

I wasn't particularly referring to a war but more just a wish for theists to be far away from me.

I've reread the thread a few times now and I am not sure what your overall point is? Could you summarise it for me?



It would be easier to get rid of yourself - or at the very least stop seeking theists out?

I've reread the thread a few times now and I am not sure what your overall point is? Could you summarise it for me?
Be glad to. Western Europeans moved West because the easy pickings were there. In looking West, they forgot to look behind (East) themselves. In the East, the Muslims - over the last thousand years - either converted the local population or forced them to move (diaspora). Regretfully, Western Europe has turned a "blind-eye" to this. One could even use the more active term "abandonment" of Eastern Europe to the Muslims.

Our history textbooks have been principally written by Western Europeans. As such they have tended to focus on the successes of Western Europe, which is much more interesting than the events in the "backwater" East. Unfortunately, neglecting Eastern Europe is haunting us.

Columbus represents the leading edge of a "refugee" movement by opening the migration of Western Europeans into the New World while the Muslims expanded into Eastern Europe, nearly overrunning Western Europe. The displacement of ethnic minorities from Turkey still continues today. The displacement of Christians from the middle east also continues.

It would be easier to get rid of yourself - or at the very least stop seeking theists out?

No need to seek them. They come to my door, they stand in the streets, they spread their beliefs in schools, they take and spend tax money.

No need to seek them. They come to my door, they stand in the streets, they spread their beliefs in schools, they take and spend tax money.

They start threads -and you join them? Why? I bet you never answer the door though!

They start threads -and you join them? Why?

Because I am fed up of being told that to be a good person you have to follow what they say and believe in supernatural nonsense. Sadly people believe that drivel. The lies of theists need to be tackled head on.


I bet you never answer the door though!
[/quote]

If the door bell rings I answer it. My "visitors" never stay long though, they don't even usually finish their tea or coffee (maybe I should change brands), once i start asking them to explain the inconsistencies in the bible.

Be glad to. Western Europeans moved West because the easy pickings were there. In looking West, they forgot to look behind (East) themselves. In the East, the Muslims - over the last thousand years - either converted the local population or forced them to move (diaspora). Regretfully, Western Europe has turned a "blind-eye" to this. One could even use the more active term "abandonment" of Eastern Europe to the Muslims.

Our history textbooks have been principally written by Western Europeans. As such they have tended to focus on the successes of Western Europe, which is much more interesting than the events in the "backwater" East. Unfortunately, neglecting Eastern Europe is haunting us.

Columbus represents the leading edge of a "refugee" movement by opening the migration of Western Europeans into the New World while the Muslims expanded into Eastern Europe, nearly overrunning Western Europe. The displacement of ethnic minorities from Turkey still continues today. The displacement of Christians from the middle east also continues.

It just sounds like you don't like islam much and consider it to be dangerous.

Because I am fed up of being told that to be a good person you have to follow what they say and believe in supernatural nonsense. Sadly people believe that drivel. The lies of theists need to be tackled head on.




If the door bell rings I answer it. My "visitors" never stay long though, they don't even usually finish their tea or coffee (maybe I should change brands), once i start asking them to explain the inconsistencies in the bible.

I thought you were trying to get rid of them? Maybe that inconistency of the welcome you pretend to offer whilst wanting to rid yourself of them, iswhy they leave.

Are these Mormons? Do you really invite them in?

I thought you were trying to get rid of them? Maybe that inconistency of the welcome you pretend to offer whilst wanting to rid yourself of them, iswhy they leave.

Are these Mormons? Do you really invite them in?

I suspect they leave because they realise there is no chance I am actually going to join their religion.

They are usually jehovah's witnesses.

I suspect they leave because they realise there is no chance I am actually going to join their religion.

They are usually jehovah's witnesses.

Sounds like you invite people in regularly - you know if you got rid of them - you couldn't invite them in?

Who would you have then - just the cat presumably?

Sounds like you invite people in regularly - you know if you got rid of them - you couldn't invite them in?

Who would you have then - just the cat presumably?

No I don't have a cat it would just be my wife, family and friends.

No I don't have a cat it would just be my wife, family and friends.

And the Witnesses - who you strongly dislike? Do you invite others you strongly dislike into you home?

Did you used to have cavity walls?

And the Witnesses - who you strongly dislike? Do you invite others you strongly dislike into you home?

Did you used to have cavity walls?

I wouldn't invite you in.

I wouldn't invite you in.

Awwww why not? You just want rid of me?

It just sounds like you don't like islam much and consider it to be dangerous. Let me put it this way, my grandparents on my Mother's side came the the US as emigrants (refugees) to escape the Turks. If you watched the video: A 60 Minute Interview with Patriarch Bartholomew (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6001717n&tag=related;photovideo) you will see that Greeks continue to abandon Turkey. The Greeks would not be doing that if they felt safe and were not being discriminated!

Here is a quickie Google result. Why Christians Are Leaving the Middle East (http://abcnews.go.com/International/christians-leaving-middle-east/story?id=9755895). From the article: "Across the Middle East, where Christianity was born and its followers once made up a sizable portion of the population, Christians are now tiny minorities. Driven by different factors – the search for better opportunities abroad, their status as targets of Iraq's sectarian conflict, a low birth rate, and discrimination – the trend largely holds true across a region where Christians have maintained a presence for two millenniums."

I think we can keep this thread clean of personal attacks. Stating an opinion is fine, even about a relative group, but personal attacks, especially directed at other members, should be kept out. ;)

The French made pacts with the Huron Nation in order to establish the fur trade. Huron people were hunter gather and nomadic within their territories. English were more eager to colomize and delt more with the six nations of the iroqois. First establishing settlements near existing communities so they would have protestion by the six nations.
It did not take long before european greed fueled fueds between the original people, then the europeans decided to just invade and fight over the land which never belonged to them in the first place.
The greed continues to this day, the treaties and agreements created over time are not honoured by non-natives.

From an historical view, the (mostly) English peoples who were the original colonists in what is now the USA were interested in religious freedom, land and money (not necessarily in that order).
The Puritans who were saved from starvation by the local native peoples in New England in the first Thanksgiving soon slaughtered these same native peoples as they did not wish to give up their lands to the expanding colonies.

In Canada, the French realized they had a good deal as the native peoples were more than happy to trade their animal pelts for trinkets and baubles in Quebec. The result is that there were few problems (until later) as the French government discouraged colonization in favor of the fur trade. The French traders had a vested interest in keeping the native peoples alive and working.

I suspect they leave because they realise there is no chance I am actually going to join their religion.

They are usually jehovah's witnesses.
I've always wondered why athiests don't go around knocking on doors looking for new members or money for some bloody old building or the leader of the group:confused:;)

I've always wondered why athiests don't go around knocking on doors looking for new members or money for some bloody old building or the leader of the group:confused:;)

Laziness I suspect

One small advantage of living in a "higher security" situation is no one knocks on your door.

They have to be let into the gate first.

They could climb over the razor wire but that can be a little scratchy at times.:eek:

Much easier to pretend you are out when they can't surprise you at the door.

I've always wondered why athiests don't go around knocking on doors looking for new members or money for some bloody old building or the leader of the group:confused:;)

I'm actually thinking of starting an athiest charity to help out people in need. ;)

I'm actually thinking of starting an athiest charity to help out people in need. ;)
Will you do it religiously?:eek:

Will you do it religiously?:eek:

Pray tell, what do you mean? :D

Laziness I suspect

No, more likely they respect people's privacy and don't feel the need to brainwash others into thinking the same, closed-minded thoughts as them.

No, more likely they respect people's privacy and don't feel the need to brainwash others into thinking the same, closed-minded thoughts as them.

My previous comment may have been sarcastic.