|
August 20, 2009
Elizabethan distractions and pointless historical ironies
This is a disjointed post that I'll probably regret publishing, but what the hell. (In blogging, it's usually better to regret doing something than to regret doing nothing.) Quite innocently -- and by that I mean I had no particular ideological axe to grind --last night I was reading about Elizabeth I of England and her intriguing diplomatic initiatives with Muslim rulers: Trade and diplomatic relations developed between England and the Barbary states during the rule of Elizabeth.[139][140] England established a trading relationship with Morocco in opposition to Spain, selling armour, ammunition, timber, and metal in exchange for Moroccan sugar, in spite of a Papal ban.[141] In 1600, Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud, the principal secretary to the Moroccan ruler Mulai Ahmad al-Mansur, visited England as an ambassador to the court of queen Elizabeth I,[142][143] in order to negotiate an Anglo-Moroccan alliance against Spain.[144][145] Elizabeth "agreed to sell munitions supplies to Morocco, and she and Mulai Ahmad al-Mansur talked on and off about mounting a joint operation against the Spanish".[146] Discussions however remained inconclusive, and both rulers died within two years of the embassy.[147]It has to be borne in mind that Elizabeth's immediate predecessor, the very unpopular "Bloody Mary," had restored Catholicism in England and her widowed husband Philip II, King of Spain, had been the King of England, and believed it was his duty to re-re-Catholicize England. So Spain remained a potent, dire threat, the Moors were Spain's implacable enemies, and seen as no threat to Protestantism. Even if she didn't trust them, Elizabeth was a skilled practitioner of war by diplomatic means. Ultimately, the Anglo-Spanish war resulted, the Armada was sunk, and Spanish decline began. Elizabeth, who had tried to be tolerant of British Catholics turned on them after her excommunication by Pope Pius V, and the latter's declaration that British Catholics owed her no allegiance, thus forcing the issue by turning Catholics into traitors. Elizabeth in turn supported Protestants in the religious wars in France and the Netherlands, and of course the protracted European wars of religion outlived her. I think the most flattering words ever spoken about Elizabeth came from Pope Sixtus V, who, while he naturally renewed his predecessor's excommunication of her, made this comment (shortly before the sinking of the Armada): She certainly is a great queen. And were she a Catholic she would be our dearly beloved. Just look at how well she governs; she is only a woman, only mistress of half an island. And yet she makes herself feared by Spain, by France, by the Empire, by all.Anyway, while reading about Elizabeth, I happened upon this map of Europe just before the Counter-Reformation: CAPTION Catholic areas (green), Protestant areas (blue) and Islam-controlled areas (red), before the Counter-Reformation. The Muslim Ottoman Empire shared the boundary with Christian Europe to the southeast. Inevitably, the question arises of how many people were killed, and by whom. Unfortunately, the figures vary enormously, and there is not enough time in a day -- or a year -- to come up with numbers. Sites like this list them war by war and battle by battle, but as there was no agreement between contemporaneous historians (and considering government and religious biases how could there be?), I see no way to achieve consensus now. It used to be that Protestant and Catholic finger-pointing would tend to inflate the numbers on each side, but then revisionism would reduce them, often dramatically. For example, a post Modernist scholar I know insists that only 35 people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition and that Americans have largely been duped by bigoted British promoters of the "Black Legend." Of course, a more recent tendency is to see modern atheism as the far greater killer. This (IMO) requires seeing Stalin, Hitler, and Mao as all being atheists first, with a primary goal of eradicating religion, and it has of course been hotly debated. But the analysis of these bloodthirsty tyrants as being primarily driven by atheism is problematic. Stalin (a former seminarian) did persecute religion, but he also revived the church during the war, and Hitler (who condemned atheism, claimed to be a Christian, but flirted with creating a bizarre quasi-pagan state religion) hardly fits the profile of a man motivated by atheism. He may have killed more people for being Communists than he did for being members of religions he opposed. And if Communists are atheists, then Hitler was arguably one of the biggest mass killers of atheists who ever lived. A question that intrigues me is how many Communists did Stalin kill? During the many purges, countless Soviet Communists who imagined they were loyal were summarily murdered and sent to the Gulags to die: Stalin's drive for total control, and his pressing need for convict labour to fuel rapid industrialization, next spawned the series of immense internal purges -- beginning in 1935 -- that sent millions of party members and ordinary individuals to their deaths, either through summary executions or in the atrocious conditions of the "Gulag Archipelago."Which leads me to ask, who killed more atheists? Stalin or Hitler? Or am I not supposed to ask? (Personally, I think it's irrelevant, because they would not have been killed for being atheists -- any more than kulaks were killed for being Christians.) As to Mao, he killed 45 million Chinese, including Christians, Buddhists, Confucians, and Muslims. But surely there were millions of atheists killled too, for like Stalin, Mao was a paranoid infighter, who launched internal purge after internal purge. Identifying those who were killed specifically for their religion would be a difficult if not impossible task. So it would be another one of history's pointless ironies* if Mao turned out to be the greatest killer of atheists of all time, but hey, I was just trying to read about Elizabeth, and I got all distracted. * But aren't there people who would use such figures to make a point? Hmmm.... Maybe it's inaccurate call them pointless. If some people make a point by claiming that "Christians kill Christians," then why isn't it a point to claim that "atheists kill atheists"? (And Muslims kill Muslims too, in this big happy world.) posted by Eric on 08.20.09 at 11:45 AM
Comments
Exactly Hugh. Blaming religion for people killing and enslaving each other is like blaming guns for killing people or spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat. To quote that eminent understander of people, Robert Heinlein The excuse doesn't matter, except to the ones involved. Another Heinlein quote, he understood that man and monkey hadn't diverged all that much. The exact reason that people do what they do to each other isn't all that important, it seems to be hard-wired into us. Veeshir · August 20, 2009 02:36 PM My point, which I didn't make clear, is that when people talk about "Well, people kill each other over religion more than blah, blah", the only response is, Veeshir · August 20, 2009 02:40 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Socialism Is Going Broke
Elizabethan distractions and pointless historical ironies This is even worse than taxation without representation! Since when is a bad debt more sacrosanct than the Bill of Rights? War On Cancer Patients Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf Forging A Consensus War is no longer war! And tyranny is no longer tyranny! Warm Sodium Battery we have always been at war with our culture!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In this big happy world the only constant has been mans inhumanity to man.
People seem to believe they have the right to inflict harm on those who have different race, religion, color, dietary habits.
Presently in our western society the wealthy, smokers, obese, and supporters of individual responsibility and accountability seem to be targeted.