Topic: Why do people hate islam? - page 64. (Read 221004 times)

In practice they are not similar. Compare Saudi Arabia or Iran with the United States.

Oh.  So they ARE NOT SIMILAR AT ALL....

Thanks.

That would mean:
900,000 indegenous/100,000 white by 1600
4,000,000 indigenous/1,000,000 whites by 1800

So, where's the decline?!

I think your prior numbers are wacko.  Maybe you are counting "deaths attributable ..." but not "births attributable..." or some other statistical error.  Also you error in the direction of certainty.  There is none.

See this reference.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/table2.htm

Table 2. Demographic Disaster in Mexico
1519-1595

Authoritative estimates of Total Population
and Implied Rates of Decrease

      population
(millions)   population
(millions)   percent decrease
Author   place   1519   1595   1519-1595
Rosenblat   "Mexico"   4.5   3.5   22
Aguirre-Beltrán      4.5   2.0   56
Zambardino      5-10   1.1-1.7   64-89
Mendizabal      8.2   2.4   71
Cook and Simpson      10.5   2.1-3.0   71-80
Cook and Borah      18-30   1.4   78-95
Sanders   Central Mexican
Symbiotic Region   2.6-3.1   0.4   85-87
Whitmore   Valley of Mexico   1.3-2.7   0.1-0.4   69-96
Gibson      1.5   0.2   87
Sanders      1.0-1.2   0.1   90
Kubler   128 towns   0.2   0.1   50
Sources:
Rosenblat, Población indígena, vol. 1, pp. 57-122.
Aguirre-Beltrán, Población negra, pp. 200-1, 212.
Zambardino, "Mexico’s Population," pp. 21-2.
Mendizábal, "Demografía," vol. 3, p. 320.
Cook and Simpson, Population, pp. 38, 43, 45.
Cook and Borah, Aboriginal Population, p. 88.
Cook and Borah, Indian Population, pp. 46-7 (as corrected).
Sanders, "Central Mexican Symbiotic Region," p. 120; "Ecological Adaptation," p. 194.
Whitmore, Disease, p. 154.
Gibson, Aztecs, pp. 137-138.
Kubler, "Population Movements," p. 621.
Note:
The nadir of the demographic disaster is usually placed in the seventeenth-century. I chose 1595 for an end-point, not because I think this to be the nadir of the native population, but to be able to interpolate, rather than extrapolate, comparable figures for the largest number of authors. Nevertheless, Sanders’ figure for the Valley of Mexico is extrapolated from 1568.

Population of Mexico was around 1 million in 1600, out of which less than 1% was white. As time progressed, the white population increased (as a result of immigration from Europe and high birth rates), while that of the Indians declined. In 1800, the population was 5 million, and the percentage of whites had increased to 18% to 20%. Currently, it is around 10% out of a total population of 120 million.

Non sense! Numbers doesn't add up! They would need to breed like rabbits.

That is due to the fact that there were only a few thousand Spanish immigrants to start with. And these Spaniards were encouraged by the Catholic church to marry native women. Inter-racial marriages were actively encouraged in both the Spanish America and the Luso-America. Also, from the 20th century onward, the remaining natives increased their proportion of the population due to high birth rates.

Where are those census data? How do we know the actual figures of those populations by XVI century?

And isn't that strange that Mexicans went down from 25 million to 1 million and still the majority of the population looks like natives and not like Spanish? Unlike the former UK colonies, where the average Joe looks like a common English man.
Portugal and Spain lost their naval power by the XVIII Century, exactly at the dawn of nationalism when most of the bogus and fantasious history entries were forged.

Well, facts prove otherwise. For example, the native population of Mexico went down from 25 million in AD 1500 to 1 million in 1600 as a result of warfare with the conquistadors. The population in the Caribbean went down from 8 million to just 400 in less than 50 years. The population decline in the US and Canada were more moderate.

Bryant; the worse genocide wasn't Catholic but Protestant. Not the worse in absolute number but in effect.
Somehow facts don't add up with how history is being told, as it is write by victorious and the current ones are English and their descendants.
You hear a lot about inquisition and its effect on the Central and South Americas, how they were "genocided", however the population of those places are, except for Brazil and Argentina, mostly natives, descendants of those who were there before any European.
Things turn a bit different at Canada, USA and even Australia, where most of the population is occupation-descendant.

Islam and Christianity are very similar. At least they used to be very similar until the 19th century. The Catholic conquest of the Americas resulted in at least 250 million deaths in the 16th century. Till now, this remains as the worst genocide ever perpetrated in the human history. And no one has ever apologized for these deaths.

AH....NO.  The Jihad death count is not strictly ISIS, but includes all the various splinter groups of Muslims justifying terrorist violence one way or another.  It's not true today, and it was not true 1, 2, 5 or 10 years ago that "What we need to fight is ISIS."

These guys change the names of their little groups as often as you blink your eyes.  Anyway, don't lecture me about open minds and what we need to fight.  All I did was bring FACTS to the table.

More damn Muslim violence in two months than 140 years of Christian Inquisition.

And that does NOT COUNT the "legal deaths" such as the stonings of adulterers or the killings of apostates.

So where do you want to go with this argument?

This is a generalization. Things like this have been happening over and over for thousands of years. But there are differences today.

Never has there been such a great world population in the past... at least that we know of.

Never has there been such wide spread communication and transportation, worldwide... at least that we know of.

Time marches on. Just as there was a Beginning, there will be an End. Nobody knows when his or her end will come. In the same way, nobody knows when the End of everything will come. One thing we DO know... we are getting closer to the End with every passing moment.

And before ISIS was al-Qaeda and after ISIS something alike will come up... Then you talk of propaganda!

First of all, lets remove the generalisations here. The thoughts of individual people do not equate to the beliefs of entire religions and the problem  is You will get some bad apples from either religion, but its not a contest. If you are seeing it as a contest of "which religion is nicer" then you would be severely misguided.

Remember, it is not Christians or buddhism or catholic vs Muslims.
what we need is fight isis . Keep an open mind.

Bah.

Let's look at the facts.  How many were killed in the Inquisition?

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_from_the_Inquisition

the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.

That's in a hundred and forty years.

How many are being killed in violent Jihad by Islamic Terrorists today?

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Jihad Report  November, 2015
 Jihad Attacks:    169
 Countries:    30
 Allah Akbars:    34
 Dead Bodies:    1455
 Critically Injured:1706

Does any Muslim wish to compare FACTS about the Inquisition with FACTS about violent Islam?
Two months of Jihad, matches the toll in death of a hundred and forty years of the very worst of Christianity's oppressive eras.

The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions and stopped more than 7 centuries ago!
The Inquisition is a Catholic version of Sharia.

So cut out those arguments! Basically you're condemning "Catholic modules" which are built-in in Islam.

The crusades are long gone. Islam is here.

Islam should be hated because it is driving Muslims to Hell.


There is no Islamic condemnation for Muslim terrorists. The reason is because they are following their Islamic religion better than the peaceful Muslims. Peaceful Muslims who condemn Muslim terrorists are not following their religion very well, simply because they are peaceful. When they condemn Muslim terrorists, it is weak Islam trying to condemn fatihful strong Islam.

Very few people want to condemn peaceful Muslims. And they don't want to have to condemn Muslim terrorists. But people need protection from Islam. And it is the peaceful Muslims who need it the most, because the Muslims terrorists are against the peaceful Muslims for not obeying Islam by becoming terrorists.



That's why it is a good idea to get rid of Islam, so that Muslims who want to obey a peaceful religion won't have to become terrorists to obey.

It's media's power and most of the time manipulates these information, mostly people hate terrorist but they think that all muslims are the same which is wrong.

There are a lot of people who speak about the light without talking about Christ. You have asked me two questions here. Yet you have not said that you accept Jesus salvation as the Bible states it. You keep on wanting teasing me with questions while not making a statement.

Besides, the admonition was really rhetorical, anyway, regarding you personally.


What is a level of consciousness? Why would one want to be more conscious that he is when he is conscious? If there is something in the idea of being conscious that you like, then go for it.



One does not need a special level of consciousness to believe in Jesus salvation. Remember that Jesus said that unless we become like little children (who believe in Him), we will not make it to Heaven. If you want to see the Jesus light, you need to become like a little child who believes in Jesus.