Orientalism and Islam v. Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]

I'm not getting how this works. England's early voyages were in the 1580s, and colonization didn't start in earnest until after 1600. Same with the Dutch. How could this be a cause of the religious schisms that had already occurred?

[/b]

---

You are not suggesting that the "reformation" happened overnight are you? You don't mean to say that "there was Luther and there was light", do you? I would think that the evolution of the reformations discourse evolved hand in hand with the evolving power of the states that found it useful as tool to establish liturgical and therefore political independence from the catholic hierarchy.

Note of course that the Dutch and English sign the treaty of Nonesuch, [i]against the Spanish[/i], and Drake is raiding Spanish possessions in the Caribbean. For this he becomes a knight of course. The imperial competition is underway, without a doubt.

Meanwhile domestically Elizabeth treads carefully. It would not be possible to say that England is "reformed" during her reign, though she does do a job on the highland Scots. Reformation is not just an idea but a political process that is happening [i]in step[/i] with the expansion of the colonial empires, and "Protestantism" is the ideological mold which authorizes the assertion of independent power, in the colonial project.

What, pray tell, would the British have done had the Spanish insisted that the Treaty of Tordesillas should be respected by England?

In other words the apparent impact of the reformation is unduly magnified by the fact that it advances hand in hand with the assertion of independent power of the northern European states, and the colonial effort it emboldens.

Also, don't obfuscate by prevaricating, the phrase is "[b]such as[/b] that of the Moghul Navy”. The Moghul Navy is one example of a powerful force in the Indian Ocean operating in the period we are talking about. Pointedly I also mentioned the slave traders of Oman. No such navies existed along the coast of Horn of Africa. We are talking about a colonial period taking place over four hundred years, not limited to the 15th Century The point is that this is not just a matter of “getting there” but being able to establish complete dominance of a trade route.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]

Now this is back on subject.

I didn't say that protestantism has any magical property that makes its adherents smarter than that of other religions, as you seem to have interpreted it -- I certainly wouldn't, since it like all religions is antithetical to reason. I said the Catholic Church had been oppressive of free thinking, and the loosening of its grip allowed innovation to increase. It certainly wasn't a primary cause, but it happened to coincide with insemination of Europe with classical and Islamic texts on logic and mathematics.

On the other hand, your thesis that the advance of science was driven by colonial activities is very weak, since the ideas that would lead to the enlightenment -- such as heliocentrism and the development of the printing press -- predate European colonialism.[/b]

---

No this is not on topic. This is to miss the point.

What you are missing is that I am not asserting a pure chronological ascendancy of process, but a collateral relationship between processess. I did not say that colonialism caused the enlightenment. I am saying that whatever innate benefit that some European technological achievments had was magnified by the opportunity that presented itself in the pillage of North America, as I said very far above the advantage was [i]exponentially[/i] increased by the aquisition of power and wealth gained through colonial imperialism, and this in turn was rewarded by further technological advancement.

Your assertion seems to be that European power was caused by the existence of a few ideas and inventions, such as the printing press, and the "free thinking" Protestant (?!). I have pointed out that Columbus (a "close minded" Catholic in the pay of a "close minded" Catholic monarch) would certainly have been foiled, had he to travel and extra 2000 miles, [i]even if we agree to assert that Europe had slightly superior naval ability in the 15th century. [/i]It is very likely he would have given up, or disappeard into legend, and no new expeditions would have taken place for years to come.

Furthermore, I am asserting that colonial domination, and the aquisition of power has created a environment where European narrative is suprmeme, so that it is Copernicus (another "close minded" Catholic) who is identified as the champion of "heliocentrism" when in fact this idea has been around for a long time, even though no one had the [i]technical opporunity to overcome their geographic liability[/i] so that they could act upon it.

There is a particular convergence here where geography becomes a factor, given that naval technology the world over progressed at more or less the same rate up until it became really profitable for the European powers to invest in it. There was no need for great sea going fleets til that point, and most naval activity was coastal, like the Portuguese.

Please read my submission on the reformation in England, which is precisly on point, not off topic at all.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I should pick that up. And you should pick up "Stalin's Folly" by Constantine Pleshakov.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]