You don't know how hard is to maintain a country when you have to run in front of the bulls while making a paella at the same time you dance some flamenco./s
I guess that's your view of Spain, you should read and view things from more modern years than the 1950's. Also talk or Morocco and his allies USA and Israel about the immigrants that the mafia sent into Spain and Spain has never been communist or socialist, unless you don't what socialism and communism is.
Spain did not got hit by WW2 cause it was absolutely destroyed by a civil war beginning 1936. After that a dictatorship of 40 years and when it opened all industry got hit cause it was heavily protected and could not compete in open markets, add to that most of the working industries were cheaply sold to friends of the dictatorship who were, and some of them still are, in power positions.
There are several occurrences in history that the democratic majority has chosen the "wrong" person/way/thing. Democracy is considered the best system but it's not perfect.
Democracy works great among unbiased rational actors who share information. A utilitarian quorum is roughly the loss minimizing decision. The problem is we have biased irrational actors sharing misinformation. The representative system we have is even worse, the indirection between public quorum and decision makers creates a fertile bed for corruption and negative decision bias.
Maybe someday we'll have direct democracy paired with voting certification for specific issues.
In my case from different places like itch.io , smashwords.com, gumroad.com, some fundraisings that provide epubs. You also have some nice free places like standardebooks.org. Or you can sail the digital seven seas if there's no availability.
And they burned quite people for defending the science that went against their beliefs. They only stopped when they thought it would be good for their economic profits.
Exactly the same when they stopped protecting slavery, when they thought it would be good as they would get a lot of new followers and all the money and influence that would come with them.And all the fights that gave birth to the other Christian churches always for the same reasons power and money.
Oh playing the old game of "you more" , we're not debating which belief is more savage than the other, all of them are, we're pointing out that the followers of the supposedly all loving version of a god killed,should we say assassinated, lots of people just because their discoveries did not fit in their stories books.
That varied wildly. Generally more of an exception that the rule but in the worst cases like under the Almohad’s you did have Jewish or even less extremist Muslim refugees fleeing to the more tolerant (at the time) Christian kingdoms.
Well yes it’s relative. However the Church in the 1400s to 1600s or so was generally very permissive of scientific debate and not strictly dogmatic. See Galileo’s story, the issue is that when they rejected something (based on a reasonably valid scientific process albeit based on flawed evidence available at the time) that was kind of it and continued to challenging the consensus got you into some deep trouble (with a few exceptions).
One interesting thing is that in the 1400s open debate and heterodoxy was generally tolerated or even accepted IF you did it in Latin and only inside the “international scholar network” that existed at the time and didn’t go around preaching your ideas to peasants and such.
I’m certainly not implying that it was in any way good or let alone perfect in absolute terms, just that it.
That's not exactly true. Spain, Portugal and France, at least, speak languages derived from Latin, while the original languages went extincted. And Christian religion taken by the Romans annihilated all the rest of religions in Europe.
i’m no apologist for christian history but you are both dancing around the nuances to make your own respective points. both things can be true but they require a lot of words:
the roman republic, and subsequent empire were happy to allow conquered peoples to maintain their own ways of life as long as a few basic (in their estimation) requirements were met (taxes, fealty, etc). it was ripe for corruption to the conquered peoples tended to rebel and they got put down with severe violence
christianity offered a unifying thematic message and de facto polity under which constantine believed he could more effectively maintain power and peace. this system was ripe for corruption but now the people are generally kept in line by the conflation of church and state.
islam arises primarily as a repudiation of polytheism and what is perceived as loose monotheism and nonviolently sweeps through the area quickly.
regional leaders quickly learn the same lesson that constantine learned and use islam to prevent rebellion and exert control, with the added lesson learned that it’s best to just ensure everyone follows the same code from the start so that you don’t have to do a lot of political cleanup in the transition to a new belief system.
fractured “european” leaders realize how much power they’ve lost and decide that they should unify under the christian brand to go take back their power.
> islam arises primarily as a repudiation of polytheism and what is perceived as loose monotheism
I doubt that “repudiation” of said things was the main driver.
I’m pretty sure by 600ad Rome was pretty solidly Christian (or at elite levels, perhaps secular), what other gods did exist were folk/syncretistic practices, which also existed in Islam (sufis, Zoroastrian stuff, gnostic stuff etc) and which still existed today in Christianity (in the Philippines, the Caribbean, Africa, etc)
It was kind of problem that by the time Romans really got into suppressing all kinds of “heresies” and imposing Orthodoxy across the empire. Since most in their Middle Eastern provinces and Egypt weren’t Orthodox Catholic most locals didn’t really bother that much fighting for them since the Muslims at the time just seemed like another Christian sect just with a more hands off attitude to government and possibly lower taxes.
Yeah, also it was the way it happened, we should not judge those times with our vision of things, different times, different values. All religions are a form of control over the peasants, Islam grew and evolved in an area with a set of political and social characteristics and Christianity the same but different ones and that's why you find the differences and the same reason that Islam and Christianity split in several branches. And you can see east Europe went Orthodox, South Europe went Catholic and North went Protestant, add to that the fights for the power.
Well yes it highly varied. However Romans were generally more motivated by plunder and subsequent economic exploitation. To an extent they didn’t really suppress local cultural practices or imposed forced assimilation in cases where it didn’t conflict with that and even often allowed alternative power structures to exist. Assimilation largely happened over time and was mostly voluntary. To be fair gradual voluntary conversion to Islam to enhance your social/economic status was the main mechanism in the Muslim empires as well. However in Rome the transition wasn’t as binary and “multiculturalism” was much more tolerated. Also Romans were way more open to integrating and assimilating foreign cultures and practices (which is why the Roman Empire eventually turned into a “Greek Empire”) what being a “Roman” meant was way more malleable and flexible than being a Muslim.
I guess that's your view of Spain, you should read and view things from more modern years than the 1950's. Also talk or Morocco and his allies USA and Israel about the immigrants that the mafia sent into Spain and Spain has never been communist or socialist, unless you don't what socialism and communism is.
reply