European Diaspora (1 Viewer)

Steve R. · Jul 6, 2010

Galaxiom said:
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 fell in 1453 and the Muslims made steady progress into Eastern Europe until the Battle of Vienna in July 1683.

As for Russia, the Mongol Empire dissolved may have dissolved in 1368, but the 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".

Galaxiom · Jul 7, 2010

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.

Vassago · Jul 7, 2010

Galaxiom said:
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.

Rabbie · Jul 7, 2010

Vassago said:
I don't remember it starting out that way though.

Didn't think you were that old, Vass

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.

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

Vassago · Jul 7, 2010

Rabbie said:
Didn't think you were that old, Vass 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.

Steve R. · Jul 7, 2010

Vassago said:
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. 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. 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.

statsman · Jul 8, 2010

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.

Rich · Jul 8, 2010

Rabbie said:
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?

Steve R. · Jul 19, 2010

A little known story of ethnic cleansing. A 60 Minute Interview with Patriarch Bartholomew. 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.

chergh · Jul 19, 2010

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.

Pauldohert · Jul 19, 2010

chergh said:
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.

Thales750 · Jul 19, 2010

chergh said:
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?

chergh · Jul 19, 2010

Thales750 said:
Is this meant to be humorous? Or merely bad taste?

Which ever you prefer.

Pauldohert · Jul 19, 2010

chergh said:
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?

chergh · Jul 19, 2010

Pauldohert said:
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.

Pauldohert · Jul 19, 2010

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

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

chergh · Jul 19, 2010

Pauldohert said:
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.

Pauldohert · Jul 19, 2010

chergh said:
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?

chergh · Jul 19, 2010

Pauldohert said:
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.

Pauldohert · Jul 19, 2010

chergh said:
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.

European Diaspora (1 Viewer)

Retired

Super Moderator

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Super Moderator

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Retired

Active member

Registered User.

Retired

blah

Something in here

Formerly Jsanders

blah

Something in here

blah

Something in here

blah

Something in here

blah

Something in here

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread