Metal Reviews

The only existing lectures of Aristotle that was read during the Renaissance comes from Arabic scholars unless every philosophy professor I've ever taken has lied. The aristocracy may have had access to them but then again the Renaissance didn't come out of the aristocracy. Aristotle has been mentioned in all my classes and it's always mentioned how not all of his lectures survived since they were burnt by barbarians and wars. The vatican had a copy of most of his lectures but those were in a vault for at least two millenia where no one had access to them. The resurgence during the Renaissance is attributed to distribution my Arabs. No?

Yeah, so the only constant from late Antiquity through the Middle Ages to the start of Romanticism is the Byzantine Empire, with Greece as its central domain, and no one there is going to pay attention to Greek writers. No, everyone's going to send those works without retaining a copy to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Cyrene, where they can handily be acquired by those warlike people from the deserts when they decide to go conquer.

Very plausible!

But then, behold, the Europeans invade those same lands, bringing in their wake an entire bureaucracy and many scholars and scientists. Relations between invaders and invaded fragile but vital. Does the Renaissance start some years after 1080?

Nay!

It started around the middle of the fifteenth century in Italy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Italian city-states such as Pisa, Venice and Genua had lots of contact with a certain city now considered Turkish soil by some (mainly the Turks) and which had even less than absolutely nothing to do with the fact that in that same period said city was captured and renamed by said Turks, a catastrophe in which many of the wealthier and more educated inhabitants of said city, who didn't speak Greek at all, sold off their possessions to said Italian merchants and mercenaries in exchange for a risky escape to Italian soil. These people, who spoke a language entirely different from Greek, indubitably carried with them - or sold to their saviours - tracts, foliants, parchments, books, tablets, palimpsests, scrolls etc. upon which scientific, philosophical, scholarly things were written, but given their descent probably in Arabic, yes?

Umm... Sorry dude, but it's an undisputed fact that in the 12th-13th century many Westerners translated classical works from Arabic, particularly from Spain, and this is how they were re-introduced into the West. Obviously the Byzantines had some texts too, and the collapse of Eastern Roman power led to these texts being spread, but the Arabic civilizations did preserve many works, and were much more scientifically and mathematically advanced than western Europe; hence why these works mysteriously appear in Western Europe, say, at the same time as parts of Spain were conquered. Not to mention Muslim Sicily, which acted as a translation hub for quite a while- that's how we have Ptolemy's Almagest, possibly the most important work of ancient astronomy. The Renaissance may have only started in the 15th century, but Thomas Aquinas had his hands on Aristole long before that, and the Renaissance isn't possible without the scientific and philosophical buildup in Western Europe.

This is not to denigrate Western medieval societies. I love medieval history. But seriously, your response to this is as crazy as someone saying the Greeks absolutely did so not contribute to Western political thought because they're Turkish and really don't like Greeks.

Well, I don't mean that the West should be more like Saudi Arabia in the sense that I believe you mean, or what you seem to have gathered from my inference, at least; what I am saying is that whilst Western (European) culture is being compromised, Oriental culture is not, e.g., the Saudi Arabia not following suit and likewise allowing the West to impose their fingerprint upon their landscape, both culturally and architecturally. Hence the "one way street" reference. Ya gotta draw the line somewhere, better now than later.
Over time, if current trends continue, we will see Western culture become less and less predominant in our own countries... now that may not mean anything to you, but to some, it does. Do you not feel that the opinions of those that would like their homelands culture and landscape to remain uniquely their own ought to be respected?
Now the Swiss have voted for a ban on minarets... that decree should be respected by the Muslims that chose to call Switzerland their home. After all, they are the interlopers.
I see it here in Cali all the time; people flying the Mexican flag from their house, car, whatever, and displaying slogans like "viva La Raza" and voicing that and similar sentiments... it's a slap in the face and pretty damned inconsiderate, too. Especially considering the state is in dire straits financially and all the extra "accomodations" thus provided aren't exactly free.
But, geez, man, don't cry. It's just an opposing POV, after all.

But the fact is, it is not true that Arab states haven't absorbed any Western influence. I mean, just look at Dubai. And outside the Arab world- look at China, previously an isolationist fortress, now hosting the Olympics and shopping at Wal-Mart.

People lamenting the demise of whatever Western culture is should look at the way in which it is becoming so completely dominant in many other parts of the world that previously had nothing to do with it. (BTW: for me, "Western culture"'s cornerstone is openness and acceptance of plurality in the Lockean tradition, so the Swiss referendum is actually a self-destruct button rather than an act of preservation).

I notice the tabs over here and FOX over there started their "War on Christmas" season a couple of weeks ago... a constant drip feed of fabricated non-stories whispering "psst, everything is changing because those atheists/muslims HATE all our precious traditional values. HATES them we say!".... the agenda quite clearly being to provoke just such a reaction as the Swiss have risen to. Makes me sick, really.

Hah, I don't need anyone to breathe life into my culture. I can keep whatever cultural traits I wish alive myself no matter how many minarets are built in my city. I can draw my pictures and play my instruments regardless of the architecture of the places of worship in my country. It has nothing to do with breathing life into my culture. It has something to do with certain national-romantic pussies who want to freeze culture (as defined by them) on a completely arbitrary point of time in the cultural evolution that they see fit, while ignoring basic cultural values as plurality and tolerance because it doesn't fit into their scheme. People that walk around thinking that their culture is so fragile that it can actually be threatened by a minority that have different garments and buildings than themselves. They are the enemies of culture because they seek to monopolise it and turn it into a monument of a world of yesteryear while actively destroying parts of it themselves. People like you, who are so afraid of their imaginary apparitions of "hammers and sickles" and whatnot that they fail to see a minaret for what it is: A pile of bricks that has a symbolic value to a religious group of which you are not part and apart from that a largely irrelevant adornment. Do you feel a threat to your own cultural identity when you walk past a piece of architecture that look 'un-Flemish'? If you do then it is more of a reflection of your own cultural insecurity than of the intention of the building. In that case feel free to curl up in foetal position and hug Manneken Pis or whatever is considered correct taste by Flemish reactionaries. It's always easier to lock yourself in your own little room than it is to have to face the changing world. Coward.

Undisputed? Then why did the EU in 2002 'recommend' a more positive portrayal of the input of the Arabs to the ministers of education? Ominous, I know.

That the Dark Ages found our (my?) Germanic ancestors at first bereft of many scientific advances of the Ancients whereas the muslims had just acquired them at that time, I will not dispute. But again, I must stress the fact that such knowledge was mostly guarded by Christian minorities - in Syria, in the Cyrenaica, and as you rightly said, on Sicily - where they were removed from the decrepifying influence of the islamic theologians.

What did the Muslims add to that knowledge anyway? Not much. The medical knowledge of the Ancients was only truly improved upon by Vesalius in the early Renaissance. They were a people in the middle of the major trade routes, jealously passing off the material and scientific wealth of others as their own.

Walmart =/= Western culture... and if they didn't want it there, I say it shouldn't be there. The West has no more right to impose their hanprint where it isn't wanted than the East does.
If the Dubai people decided by whatever methods they decide these things that Walmart has no place there, would you support there decision and concede that Walmart has got to go?
This:



As you stated, is only your opinion, others obviously disagree; so are they to just be ignored?

As for FOX news... who cares what they have to say, though I see what you tried to do... "it's not a peoples wish to retain their national / cultural heritage, it's nothing more than fear mongering via propaganda"... well, not everyone is s sheep ya know; believe it or not, many people are able to formulate their own thoughts and convictions.

Well, in 2009 yeah, I would say Western culture = Wal-Mart. Obviously that's a vast simplification, but what is more exemplary of our society?

I support the right of people to decide what happens in their immediate environment. If the Swiss want to ban minarets then they should be able, but I reserve the right to call doing so a bad decision. Just like I reserve the right to call Americans voting for Sarah Palin a bad decision, and British people voting for the BNP a bad decision.



No, but ridiculed/criticised/questioned, seems perfectly applicable.



For a start; people wishing to retain their culture is not the result of fear-mongering. People thinking that their culture is being destroyed before their eyes, however, is.

Everybody THINKS they aren't a sheep, and everyone THINKS they have a completely free mind. But you don't have to watch Sean Hannity and think "oh yeah, I agree" to swallow that agenda. In fact, you can watch him and think "what a douchebag", and still swallow it. If you have a story about Christmas cards being banned in a school so as not to offend Muslims- it really doesn't matter if you have the most articulate pundit on persuasively advocating the "muslim side" about how the story is made up bullshit. The fact remains, that yet another "issue" has been presented in a manner that can only be understood as a question of "sides" in the first place. The dominant narrative still becomes one of conflict. Thus, however free-mindedly you interpret whatever news item, the same narrative is still drip-fed.

FOX is just an example, by the way. The same could be applied to any source.

Do you know, I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that you are barking.

Don't you see? To the right, minarets are not a sign of islamification. They are not a symbol of freedom of religion. They are a symbol of the forthcoming apocalypse in which all humanity shall be judged and those found wanting sent to clean a purple dinosaur with a pair of pink curtains.

Am I doing it right?

Shrug.

oooh burn

Walmart is a store... so, shopping is a uniquely "Western" thing? Hmmm, somehow I doubt that.

You are right, the same could be applied to any source, including any leftist source... I don't see your point, other than trying tie in a POV with something that is largely seen as a propaganda machine, could it be in order to discredit said POV's validity?

Why can't you liberals frame any argument without becoming insulting and condescending?
Douchebag?

This lovely little tidbit?:


It's like trying to reason with a PMS-ing female...

Anyway, I wanted to address this:

Rio wrote:


So you are saying that tolerance, acceptance of plurality and openess is a Western value, and that it is not exactly one held by Muslim countrys, correct?
Now if that is the case, why on earth would anyone want to invite that lack of tolerance, acceptance of plurality and openess into their own country?
After all, the larger this (by your own admission) intolerant, singular and closed population becomes, the more political clout they will have, and the more intolerant and closed the once open and tolerant society is liable to become.
What was that you said about shooting one's self in the foot?

Insulting?

A good question!



You're right, I shouldn't have said this... it makes me look like an arse. I....


wait.....


Stop crying, of course I insult people. I'm not going to patronise them by pretending I think their argument works when I don't.

(BTW: if you want to talk about condescending, how about the "you liberals" bit... I'm not actually a liberal, but even if I were that would be silly)



There is a lot more to Wal-Mart than simply being a store. You took me incredibly literally when I used Wal-Mart as one example. However; the relentless fetishism of "the customer is king", the desire for cheaper and cheaper goods and greater convenience, the expansion of brand names into nationless behemoths. Yes, if this isn't the most important element of modern Western culture, it's certainly the one we export most enthusiastically and the most effectively. Funny thing is, I'm sure I've seen you complaining about the exact same things...



This doesn't logically stack up. Explain to me the leap from

minarets unbanned in Switzerland...

...to Switzerland becoming less tolerant.

"Tolerance" in the sense I praise and see as a cornerstone of the good things about Western society, means taking people as individuals and evaluating them as such. Not assuming that they must be guilty because of what religious building they go to.

Pointless preamble aside, my post about a tolerant society becoming less tolerant as it invites an intolerant element into it's midst is pretty straightforward, I really don't know how I can simplify it further.

Wait, I got it!

Take a color, oh, lets say blue... well the more red that you add the less blue it becomes... get it?

And if they don't like Walmart, they don't have to shop there, now, do they?
Simple.

I think you're blaming the muslims for what is, essentially, problems caused by white folks. Ain't nothing happened on this earth that isn't the fault of whitey.

No, no, no and four times no.

To use your paints analogy, if the blue wanted to stay blue exclusively, then by definition it cannot be used to represent "tolerance". I mean, do you use that word to mean something completely different to me? Because that would neatly explain this entire situation...

By the way, you don't have to walk into a mosque if you don't want to, but apparently its presence still bothers you. That's not even the point anyway. In fact the point is precisely the opposite. You said, approvingly, that other countries had been much more successful than us in keeping out Western culture. However, Wal-Mart, among many other things, illustrates that this isn't true.

You're being cheeky now, I sincerely hope?

The colors were not used as anything other than a metaphor for how one thing can become something else if that thing is influenced and taken over by an outside factor, c'mon , man, did you really not see that? It's as simple as first grade addition.

Let me ask you this: If a certain segment of a non-Western country was adamant about keeping the West's handprint off of their landscape, would you agree with that desire to maintain their own countries unique identity and culture?
And if you happen to support that, why is it "intolerant" when the same sentiment is reciprocated in the West?
Or perhaps you feel that the West has every right to impose itself on the Muslim world?
Why should the West bend over while the rest of the world is allowed to maintain their unique identity?
Or is the Muslim world simply intolerant and regressive?
Which brings us back to the question: if they ARE intolerant and regressive (in your view), why would you want them in your homeland to begin with, influencing your culture and society?
So, which is it?