You've shown yourself as bent on defining western civ as the villain, regardless of any facts brought to the table.

Not true. Michael's point, as I understand it, is that virtue and evil have both flowed both ways. He is presenting a reasonable, balanced argument, and you are producing right wing talking points.

Yes, it had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity. The Europeans used Christianity as a justification for their destruction,

I think you misunderstand my premise. The genocide of native people created something of a blank slate upon which Christianity could spread. I am thinking effect, not motive.

So the series of genocidal wars waged by Europeans and their descendants against Native Americans which destroyed their civilization had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity in North America?

Yes, it had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity. The Europeans used Christianity as a justification for their destruction, but it wasn't the reason for it. Columbus promised the Spanish crown gold, not converts.

True. But I wonder if YOU do.

Come now, Bit, after all this time you're still going to question my intelligence?

It worked fine because you know what I"m saying, and that's more than sufficient.

I knew what you were trying to say, which is only slightly less wrong that what you actually said.

You've shown yourself as bent on defining western civ as the villain, regardless of any facts brought to the table.

When the hell did I do that? Just because I don't have to construct a fairy tale where Christianity and western civilization are perfect and anything else is evil, doesn't mean that I love it any less. Indeed, those that love western civilization despite it's flaws have more love than those who must deny those flaws in order to love it.

You know exactly what we were saying,

True. But I wonder if YOU do.

It worked fine because you know what I"m saying, and that's more than sufficient. You've shown yourself as bent on defining western civ as the villain, regardless of any facts brought to the table.

You see, Anjin, where Christianity spread and took hold, was to the extent that people saw it as good.

So the series of genocidal wars waged by Europeans and their descendants against Native Americans which destroyed their civilization had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity in North America?

Consider that most of these were under Spanish influence for far longer.
Or are you saying, by chance that there was no positive influence after Torquemada?

You know exactly what we were saying, but instead of admitting that your off-the-cuff statement was maybe less accurate than you originally thought, you tried to find some way of redefining it such that you could still claim to have been right from the beginning.

It didn't work.

Michael beat me to the punch with this. So much for Bit's theory.

Not really.
Consider that most of these were under Spanish influence for far longer.
Or are you saying, by chance that there was no positive influence after Torquemada?

North and South America are examples that contradict this claim.

Michael beat me to the punch with this. So much for Bit's theory.

Then there is the example of Moorish civilization in Europe. Moors where highly advanced at a time when counting to 10 was rocket science in Europe. Absent their influence, would the brilliant culture of exploration in Spain and Portugal have ever taken place?

Bit you really need to do better than "us good, them bad".

The other direction, not so much. UNtil recently.

We've been taking many parts of eastern culture for quite some time. The flow of virtues has never been a one way street.

No, but then again, where they spread it thus, it didn't really take hold for long, did it?

North and South America are examples that contradict this claim.

What you perceive as a virtue, another may not. Try and expand the scope of your thinking, "we are good, they are bad" is a bit of an oversimplification.

BTW, would you consider the crusades as an example of western culture spreading "based on its virtues"?

No, but then again, where they spread it thus, it didn't really take hold for long, did it? You see, Anjin, where Christianity spread and took hold, was to the extent that people saw it as good. So, no, that's not an oversimplification.

Western culture has been spreading, based on it's virtues, for 1000 years.

What you perceive as a virtue, another may not. Try and expand the scope of your thinking, "we are good, they are bad" is a bit of an oversimplification.

BTW, would you consider the crusades as an example of western culture spreading "based on its virtues"?

Consider also, how western culture and ideas have advanced into other cultures. The world is a smaller place than it once was, and people and ideas move about pretty freely.

Sorry, Anjin... no sale.
Western culture has been spreading, based on it's virtues, for 1000 years. The other direction, not so much. UNtil recently.

Don't President Bush and his minions deserve some credit for putting the terrorists into a position where they saw that as their best approach?

The terrorists still see it as their best approach, it's the non-terrorists that have stopped seeing it that way. To that extent, the only credit that can be given to any western nation is not openly succumbing to the demands of the terrorists. So yea, good on Bush for not surrendering to them, but that still doesn't mean our little Iraqi adventure was a good idea.