> And here we approach a deep-seated reason for the hatred of Columbus. He was a colonialist and an imperialist. He believed in the superiority of his Catholic faith and European tribe. He believed that what we call the West should rule, because its faith, of which God Himself had been the founder, and its culture and civilization, which excelled all others in arms, inventions, literature, governance and the arts, were superior.
> Christopher Columbus was a Christian European supremacist.
> ...
> How else, these men would ask us, does civilization progress, if not through the imposition by superior men of superior ideas? What great nation, what great empire, what great civilization ever rose on a belief in the equality of all other peoples and all other faiths?
> Furthermore, his purpose for making the trip reflects a greater British colonial theme, global missionary work. Britain felt obligated to spread its superior ideas and culture around the world and civilize those in need of their assistance.
> The Peace of Westphalia remained in effect until the revolutionary
leaders of France, who believed their ideas were superior ideas and
should therefore be imposed throughout Europe, decided to go to war.
The decision to go to war coincided with the developing concept of
sovereignty which included the idea that a state had the right to use
force whenever its leaders wished.
If you usurp the language of conquest, how do you tell if you've also inherited the bigotry and intolerance that so often accompanies it?
If you usurp the language of conquest, how do you tell if you've also inherited the bigotry and intolerance that so often accompanies it?
Anyone, regardless of their ethnic background, is capable of holding any view. Race does not determine the content of the mind.
I'm sorry you don't like the word, but in the realm of ideas, there is such a thing as good or bad, better or worse, superior or inferior, etc.
Now that I think about it, I don't think "superior" is a strong enough word. Individualism is not merely superior to racism: the former is is true and good, while the latter is false and evil.
In that case, I think my views of multicultural secularism are superior to your views on individualism. In either case, neither are at all relevant to the OP's question, which is:
"How should we react to wholesale blaming of all Muslims for the violence, and to rising attitudes of suspicion towards Muslims?
Ahh, usurping the language of imperialism and religious domination. We've got lots of experience to show how well that works out.
Here's Pat Buchanan using that same language: http://buchanan.org/blog/goodbye-columbus-7030
> And here we approach a deep-seated reason for the hatred of Columbus. He was a colonialist and an imperialist. He believed in the superiority of his Catholic faith and European tribe. He believed that what we call the West should rule, because its faith, of which God Himself had been the founder, and its culture and civilization, which excelled all others in arms, inventions, literature, governance and the arts, were superior.
> Christopher Columbus was a Christian European supremacist.
> ...
> How else, these men would ask us, does civilization progress, if not through the imposition by superior men of superior ideas? What great nation, what great empire, what great civilization ever rose on a belief in the equality of all other peoples and all other faiths?
The British spread 'superior ideas' as well, https://visserhis338.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/journal-seven/ :
> Furthermore, his purpose for making the trip reflects a greater British colonial theme, global missionary work. Britain felt obligated to spread its superior ideas and culture around the world and civilize those in need of their assistance.
Here you see it used to justify war http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...
> The Peace of Westphalia remained in effect until the revolutionary leaders of France, who believed their ideas were superior ideas and should therefore be imposed throughout Europe, decided to go to war. The decision to go to war coincided with the developing concept of sovereignty which included the idea that a state had the right to use force whenever its leaders wished.
If you usurp the language of conquest, how do you tell if you've also inherited the bigotry and intolerance that so often accompanies it?